To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

State of Arizona analysis of impediments to fair housing choice

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 2004

ANALYSIS of
IMPEDIMENTS
to FAIR HOUSING CHOICE
Arizona Department of Housing
1700 W. Washington, Suite 210
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602.771.1000 Phone
602.771.1002 Fax
602.771.1001 TTY This document is available in alternate
formats upon request.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Table of Contents
2
Section One: Introduction, Summary of Issues, & Conclusions ................................................... 3
Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................4
Summary of Fair Housing Issues ..............................................................................................................4
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................6
Section Two: Statistical Data on Demographics, Income, Poverty, Employment and Housing . 7
Statewide Demographic Data......................................................................................................................8
Population by Race and Ethnicity................................................................................................8
Population by Age..........................................................................................................................9
Arizona Income Data .....................................................................................................................9
Household Income by Income Category ..................................................................................10
Household Income by Race and Income Category..................................................................11
Poverty by Race and Ethnicity....................................................................................................11
Poverty and Disability .................................................................................................................12
Statewide Employment Profile .................................................................................................................13
Statewide Housing Profile .........................................................................................................................14
Homeownership by Race and Ethnicity....................................................................................14
Housing Quality and Affordability ...........................................................................................15
Non‐Metropolitan Arizona .......................................................................................................................16
Population ...........................................................................................................................................16
Income, Poverty and Unemployment Rate...............................................................................17
Housing and Housing Quality ...................................................................................................17
Non‐Metropolitan Minority Concentration Census Tracts ..................................................18
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data as an Indicator of Discrimination .............................19
The Flagstaff MSA.................................................................................................................20
The Yuma MSA .....................................................................................................................21
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................23
Section Three: Evaluation of the State of Arizona’s Fair Housing Profile ................................. 24
Data From the Arizona Attorney General’s Office ................................................................................25
Data From the Arizona Department of Housing Survey......................................................................27
Section Four: Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in the State of Arizona . 30
List of Impediments and Action Steps.....................................................................................................32
Section Five: Public and Private Fair Housing Activities ..................................................................34
Federally Funded Activities ......................................................................................................................35
State of Arizona Activities .........................................................................................................................35
Private Sector Activities .............................................................................................................................37
Appendix: Survey of Statewide Fair Housing Advocacy Organizations ........................................ 38
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice
3
Section One
INTRODUCTION,
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
& CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section One
4
INTRODUCTION
The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), requires that each state conduct an
analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within the State and to outline and take
appropriate, effective actions to ameliorate the identified impediments. The HUD definition of “fair
housing choice” means the ability of persons, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial
status or national origin, of similar incomes, to have available the same housing choices.
This analysis document was prepared by the Arizona Department of Housing, utilizing many sources of
information. These sources included:
􀂃􈍔 The 2000 United States Census.
􀂃􈍔 The 1995 ‐ 1996 Consolidated Plans prepared by the State of Arizona, City of Phoenix, Maricopa
County Consortium, Tucson/Pima County Consortium and the City of Yuma.
􀂃􈍔 The results of a survey of fair housing advocacy groups performed by the Arizona Department of
Housing in February 2004.
􀂃􈍖 Various reports on the effects of zoning, other land use controls and building controls on fair
housing and affordable housing, including a report written by Arizona State University faculty.
􀂃􈍈 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data obtained through Internet searches from the
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC) public data sources and reports.
􀂃􈍆 Fair housing complaint data supplied by the State Attorney General’s Office.
􀂃􈍄 Data on activities underway and recently undertaken which aim to educate persons in protected
classes and the various segments of the housing industry, about fair housing and the nature of
housing discrimination.
Several reports on the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice from other states, such as
Georgia, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii and others, were also reviewed, and some important ideas from
those reports were utilized in the compilation of data and analysis sections of his report.
SUMMARY OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
That housing discrimination is widely practiced throughout the United States and the State of Arizona is
no longer discussed in terms of whether discrimination exists, but rather, the nature and extent to which fair
housing discrimination exists and persists.
The responses to the Survey on Fair Housing Issues conducted by the Arizona Department of Commerce
in December 1995 (and contained in the 1997 Analysis of Impediments) confirm that Arizona is plagued
by housing discrimination against the seven protected classes of persons. Among the problems cited
were:
􀂃􈍎 NIMBY ‐ Not In My Back Yard attitudes against projects that serve lower income (“those people”
‐ shorthand for people of color) and disabled people, and the lack of political will and/or interest
to defuse community hostility.
􀂃􈍆 Frequently cited is the 1994 revision of the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act that
creates a presumption that occupancy limited to two persons per bedroom is reasonable as a
standard for compliance with the Fair Housing Act.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section One
5
􀂃􈍌 Landlord resistance to accommodating the disabled community, so that disabled renters can
easily navigate their units and the grounds of the buildings.
􀂃􈍌 Landlords screen callers by their surnames and respond that the unit is already rented.
􀂃􈍔 The lending community is described as reluctant to lend in lower income areas, which often are
predominantly or heavily minority.
􀂃􈍈 Homeowner insurance companies redline low income areas, charge higher rates for insurance, or
cancel for any kind of claim.
􀂃􈍄 Discrimination is often subtle, sometimes taking the form of discouraging remarks (to families ‐ “
this complex is very quiet”), grouping families or persons of color in one part of a complex, losing
paperwork and missing deadlines.
Among the issues described in earlier public input sessions were:
􀂃􈍔 The problem of discrimination is not singular; it is a combination of social and economic factors;
it stems from ignorance, prejudice, fears of the impacts of desegregation and change, plus a
paralysis and polarization of interest groups.
􀂃􈍗 We believe the problems in any affordable housing within Arizona to be complex and
interrelated. These problems include lack of industry and consumer education, inadequate
enforcement, resources, and socio‐economic factors in the Arizona state markets...some
discrimination is not visible, it is generational.
􀂃􈍔 There is a lack of knowledge throughout the landlord community regarding the relevant laws.
There is also a severe shortage of definite answers to specific questions that arise. Therefore the
answers are derived by litigation.
􀂃􈍗 We see segregation and fair housing to be two separate issues. In terms of segregation, there are
three problems: lack of education, affordability and the lack of effectiveness and integration in
existing governmental programs. In terms of fair housing, the primary problem is lack of
education from groups on all sides of the issues, including consumers (renters/buyers) sellers
(landlords, real estate agents, owners, lenders) and regulatory and nonprofit agencies.
􀂃􈍌 Lack of knowledge on the part of housing providers, housing seekers, landlords and tenants,
concerning the fair housing laws, the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), state tenant/landlord
laws. Historically, these laws only looked at solutions to problems of inaccessibility by
“grouping” rather than community approach. Lack of enforcement of laws and lack of
networking to identify current affordability and accessible housing.
There was consensus among the participants concerning the antidotes to these issues. These included
need for more education on what constitutes fair housing violations and to encourage more tolerance of
the protected classes, better coordination among advocacy and development agencies and between the
public and private sectors, more affordable housing, and more leadership, particularly from elected
officials.
This conclusion was also supported by data gathered by the Arizona Department of Housing for this
Analysis of Impediments. Based on these findings, the Arizona Department of Housing awarded $382,112
in 2002 and 2003 funds to educate people throughout the state in issues related to fair housing.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section One
6
CONCLUSIONS
The consensus is that the primary manner in which to fight discrimination is through education ‐ of
housing providers and consumers ‐ and to provide vigilant and timely enforcement of the fair housing
laws.
The remainder of this Analysis of Impediments looks at Arizona’s racial, income and housing
demographics, the identified impediments to fair housing that have been discerned by the community
and through FHIP funded studies, the ongoing activities to ameliorate or better, to remove impediments,
and a list of actions appropriate to the State government.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice
7
SECTION TWO
STATISTICAL DATA
ON DEMOGRAPHICS, INCOME,
POVERTY, EMPLOYMENT, AND
HOUSING PROFILE
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
8
This section shows in narrative and table formats data related to population, income, poverty,
employment and housing. The data is divided into two broad geographical categories: the state level and
non‐metropolitan Arizona. The information presented were primarily obtained from the 2000 Census,
2000 CHAS data made available on the Internet by HUD, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data,
and various studies by the Arizona Department of Housing and Arizona Housing Commission.
STATEWIDE DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
During the 1990s, Arizona’s total population increased by 40% (or by 1,465,40 people), from 3,665,228 in
1990 to 5,130,632 in 2000. Of the total new population, 76.9% live in the two metropolitan counties of
Maricopa and Pima, and the remaining 22.1% in the 13 rural counties. In terms of percentage population
growth in the 1990s, Arizona was the second fastest growing state in the nation, following Nevada.
Arizona is a highly urbanized state, with 76.3% of its population residing in the two urban counties of
Maricopa and Pima, and the remaining 23.7% in the 13 rural counties.
Population by Race and Ethnicity
The distribution of state population by race and ethnicity, based on 2000 Census, is as follows:
􀂃􈌲 25.3%, Hispanic Origin.
􀂃􈌳 36.2%, minority (according to Population Statistics Unit of the Arizona Department of Economic
Security).
􀂃􈌷 75.5% ��White” (Hispanic and Non‐Hispanic White).
Further details regarding Arizona’s population is presented in Table 1:
Table 1: Arizona Population by Race and Ethnicity – Year 2000:
Race or Ethnicity
Number
% of Total
Population
Total Population 5,130,632 100%
White 3,873,611 75.5%
Black or African American 158,873 3.1%
American Indian and Alaska Native 255,879 5.0%
Asian 92,236 1.8%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 6,733 0.1%
Some Other Race 596,774 11.6%
Two or More Races 146,526 2.9%
Hispanic or Latino* 1,295,617 25.3%
Not Hispanic or Latino 3,835,015 74.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
* Persons of Hispanic Origin could be of any race. Hispanic is not a race, it is an ethnicity like Germans, Afghans, or
Greeks.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
9
Population by Age
People back east and in the Midwest think that Arizona is a retirement state and median age might be in
the 40s or 50s. But that is a myth, rather than a reality. According to Census 2000, median age of
population in Arizona was 34.2 years, which is lower than the U.S. median age of 35.3 years.
􀂃􈍓 School‐Age Population (Under 18 Years) ‐ Data presented in Table 2 shows that the school age
population (Under 18 years) in Arizona is 26.6% of the total population.
􀂃􈍗 Working‐Age Population (18 to 65 Years) ‐ This population group comprises 60.3% of the total
population.
􀂃􈍒 Retirement‐Age Population (65 Years and Over) – As of year 2000, 13% of the total state
population was in this age. It is important to know that almost 6% of the state total population is 75
years or older. The number of people in this age category will increase significantly in the next 10 to
20 years, exerting much pressure on public resources allocated for services to this population group.
More details are presented in Table 2:
Table 2: Arizona Population by Age – Year 2000:
Selected Age Category
Number
% of Total
Population
Total Population 5,130,632 100%
Under 5 Years 382,386 7.5%
Under 18 Years 1,366,947 26.6%
18 to 64 Years 309,5846 60.3%
65 Years and Over 667,839 13.0%
65 to 74 Years 363,841 7.1%
75 to 84 Years 235,473 4.6%
85 Years and Over 68,525 1.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Arizona Income Data
With the rapid economic growth over the last 20 to 30 years, people in Arizona are still behind the U.S. in
terms of average income. This is true for median household income, median family income and per capita
income, as presented in Table 4. The definitions of the three income measures are as follows:
􀂃􈍍 Median Household Income – Households, including one person households, incorporate both
family income and non‐family income. Many non‐family households consist of either an elderly
surviving spouse or a very young adult.
􀂃􈍍 Median Family Income – Family refers to the census definition of “householder” and one or more
other persons living in the same household who are related by blood, marriage or adoption. This
excludes one person households. Income is higher here than in other measures because families
typically have more people earning incomes.
􀂃􈍐 Per Capita Income – Represents income received by all individuals who live in the area; the
aggregate figure is divided by total population, giving per capita personal income.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
10
Table 3: Average Income Indicators for Arizona and U.S. – 1999
Average Income Indicator Arizona U.S.
Median Household Income $40,558 $41,994
Median Family Income $46,723 $50046
Per Capita Income $20,275 $21,857
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Why do people in Arizona have lower incomes than national average? There is no easy answer. Most
likely, it is due to a combination of the following factors: lower wages, lower cost of living, lower
manufacturing employment, weaker unions, higher minority concentration, and highly market‐oriented
business environment.
Household Income by Income Category
Arizonans are doing better at the lower income brackets and worse at the higher income brackets. For
example:
􀂃􈌸 8.6% of households in Arizona make less than $10,000 per year, as compared to 9.5% for the U.S.
􀂃􈌶 60.4% of households in Arizona make less than $50,000 per year, as compared to 58% for the U.S.
􀂃􈌱 10.8% of households in Arizona have incomes in the $100,000 plus range, as compared to 12.9% for
the U.S.
Further breakdowns on household income by income category are presented in Table 4:
Table 4: Household Income ‐ 1999
Arizona U.S.
Household Income
Number of
Households
% of Total
Households
Number of
Households
% of Total
Households
Total Households 1,901,625 100.0% 105,539,122 100.0%
Less than $10,000 163,221 8.6% 10,067,027 9.5%
$10,000 to $14,999 120,770 6.4% 6,657,228 6.3%
$15,000 to $19,999 128,205 6.7% 13,536,965 6.3%
$20,000 to $29,999 270,248 14.2% 13,519,242 13.0%
$30,000 to $39,999 253,930 13.4% 17,446,272 12.3%
$40,000 to $49,999 210,511 11.1% 20,540,604 10.6%
$50,000 to $74,999 365,024 19.2% 10,799,245 19.5%
$75,000 to $99,999 184,026 9.7% 8,147,826 10.2%
$100,000 or more 205,690 10.8% 2,322,038 12.3%
Median Household
Income $40,558 $41,994
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and Arizona Department of Housing.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
11
Household Income by Race and Income Category
Minorities in Arizona comprise a higher share of the lower income households, and a smaller share of the
higher income households:
􀂃􈍌 Lowest Income Category ‐ 24.2% of Native Americans, 13.5% of Blacks and close to 12% of Asians
and Hispanics are included in the “less than $10,000” income category, as compared to 7.3% for
“White”.
􀂃􈍍 Middle to Low Income Categories – 70.8% of Native Americans, 62.9% of Hispanics and 58.2% of
Blacks are included in the ”Less than $40,000” income category, compared to 47.1% for “White”
􀂃􈍈 High Income Category – Only 2.5% of Native Americans and 3.5% of Hispanics are included in the
income category of “More than $100,000”, as compared to 11.6% for “White” and 15.7% for Asians.
This is the only income category, where Asians surpass Whites.
For further details, please refer to Table 5:
Table 5: Median Household Income by Income Category and by Race or Ethnicity
Arizona Total Pop White Black
Native
Americans Asian
Hawaiians
and Other
Pacific
Islanders
Some
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races Hispanic
Not
Hispanic
Less than $10,000 8.6% 7.3% 13.5% 24.2% 11.9% 8.3% 11.0% 13.3% 11.6% 7.9%
Less than $15,000 14.9% 13.3% 21.2% 33.9% 16.9% 18.2% 19.1% 20.8% 20.0% 13.9%
Less than $20,000 21.7% 19.7% 28.5% 42.6% 22.0% 21.9% 28.5% 28.3% 29.2% 20.1%
Less Than $30,000 35.9% 33.4% 44.2% 58.0% 32.8% 34.8% 46.9% 44.3% 46.9% 33.6%
Less than $40,000 49.7% 47.1% 58.2% 70.8% 44.3% 51.3% 63.1% 59.4% 62.9% 46.9%
Less than $50,000 60.8% 58.2% 68.7% 79.5% 54.0% 64.8% 75.2% 70.6% 74.3% 57.9%
Less than $75,000 80.0% 78.1% 85.4% 93.0% 72.6% 82.5% 91.7% 87.2% 90.3% 77.8%
Less than $100,000 89.7% 88.4% 93.3% 97.5% 84.3% 93.0% 97.3% 95.1% 96.5% 88.2%
More than $100,000 10.3% 11.6% 6.7% 2.5% 15.7% 7.0% 2.7% 4.9% 3.5% 11.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and Arizona Department of Housing.
Poverty by Race and Ethnicity:
Total poverty rate in Arizona is slightly higher than the U.S. average, 13.4% for Arizona versus 12.4% for
the U.S.
The rate of poverty for minority population in Arizona is significantly higher than the rest of population:
36.5% for “American Indian and Alaska Natives”, 23.6% for “Hispanics” and 19.5% for “African
Americans”, as compared to 9.9% for “White”. Further details on poverty by race and ethnicity are
presented in Table 6:
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
12
Table 6: Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity – Year 2000
Race or Ethnicity
Universe for
Poverty
Number in
Poverty
% in Poverty
Total Population 4,634,191 619,344 13.4%
White 3,549,285 351,871 9.9%
Black or African American 131,182 25,516 19.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native 222,428 81,194 36.5%
Asian 83,221 10,374 12.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander
5,435 877 16.1%
Some Other Race 513,670 125,416 24.4%
Two or More Races 128,970 24,096 18.7%
Hispanic or Latino* 1,116,887 263,929 23.6%
Not Hispanic or Latino 3,517,304 355,415 10.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
* Persons of Hispanic Origin could be of any race. Hispanic is not a race, it is an ethnicity like Germans, Afghans, or
Greeks.
Poverty and Disability
In general, people with disability have higher incidence of poverty than people with no disability:
􀂃􈍁 According to Census 2000, the percentage of population age 5 and older with disability status in
Arizona was 20.1% for males and 18.7% of females. Comparable numbers at the U.S. level were 19.7%
and 19.2%.
􀂃􈍏 Of the persons with disability, 16.0% of males and 19.1% of females in Arizona were in poverty.
Comparable numbers at the U.S. level were 15.3% and 19.7%, in that order.
Table 7: Arizona’s Poverty Status by Disability Status for the Civilian
Noninstitutionalized Population, 2000
Disability Status by Sex and Age
Number of Disabled
Persons
% of Population With
Disability Status
Males > 5 years of age with a disability 458,334 20.1%
Income in 1999 below poverty level 73,430 16.0%
Income in 1999 at or above poverty
level
384904 84.0%
Females > 5 years of age with a
disability
440,357 18.7%
Income in 1999 below poverty level 83,966 19.1%
Income in 1999 at or above poverty
level
356,391 80.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and Arizona Department of Housing
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
13
STATEWIDE EMPLOYMENT PROFILE
Arizona’s main economic sectors include services, government and trade. The single largest economic
sector is services, employing more than 883,700 people in 2003. Wholesale and retail trade provided
more than 368,200 jobs. Many of these jobs are directly related to tourism, an industry that injects more
than $12 billion into the state’s economy each year.
In 2003, manufacturing accounted for 174,000 jobs, or approximately 7.5 percent of the state’s
employment, and has historically generated almost 15 percent of wages and salaries.
The construction sector, also very important to Arizona’s economy, accounted for 176,600 jobs or 7.6
percent of the state’s employment in 2003. This sector has experienced a substantial increase in
construction activity over the past few years.
Table 8: Arizona Employment by Industry – 2003
Employment Number
Percent of Total
Employment
Government 393,700 17.0%
Professional and Business Services 320,000 13.9%
Retail Trade 275,100 11.9%
Educational and Health Services 246,300 10.7%
Leisure and Hospitality 231,500 10.0%
Construction 176,600 7.6%
Manufacturing 174,000 7.5%
Financial Activities 159,300 6.9%
Wholesale Trade 93,100 4.0%
Other Services 85,900 3.7%
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 76,600 3.3%
Information 49,400 2.1%
Agriculture 20,200 0.9%
Mining 8,000 0.3%
Total Employment 2,309,700 100.0%
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security and Arizona Department of Housing.
Note: Employment data for Agriculture is from ES‐202; all other data from Labor Force and Non‐Farm
Employment.
􀂃􈍉 In terms of urban and rural split, 85.7% of total jobs in 2003 were located in the two metro counties
of Maricopa and Pima, and the remaining 14.3% in the 13 rural counties.
􀂃􈍔 The opportunity for employment in most rural counties is much limited as compared to the urban
counties. For example, the unemployment rate in Yuma and Apache counties were 23.1% and 14.1%
as compared to 4.9% and 4.3% for the two urban counties of Maricopa and Pima.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
14
STATEWIDE HOUSING PROFILE
Single family is the primary type of housing both in Arizona and for the U.S. as a whole. Census 2000
data reveals that almost 65% of the total housing units in Arizona are single family homes, 20%
multifamily and 15% manufactured and other forms of housing. Comparable numbers for the U.S. are
65.9%, 26.3% and 7.8%, in that order. Specific numbers and percentages of housing units by housing type
are presented in table 9.
Table 9: Arizona and U.S. Housing Distribution by Housing Type
Arizona U.S.
Housing Information Indicator Number % Number %
Total Number of Units in 2000: 2,189,189 100% 115,904,641 100%
Single Family 1,375489 64.8% 76,313,410 65.9%
Multifamily 483,738 20.1% 30,549,393 26.3%
Manufactured or Mobile Homes 302,575 13.8% 8,779,228 7.6%
Other Type of Housing 27,387 1.3% 262,610 0.2%
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security and Arizona Department of Housing.
Homeownership Rate by Race and Ethnicity
The over all homeownership rate and homeownership rates for most minorities are higher in Arizona
than the U.S. average:
􀂃􈍁 All households – Arizona 68%, U.S. average 66.2%.
􀂃􈍗 White – Arizona 71.3%, U.S. average 71.3%.
􀂃􈍈 Hispanic ‐ Arizona 55%, U.S. average 45.7%.
􀂃􈍁 American Indians ‐ Arizona 61.2%, U.S. average 55.7%.
􀂃􈍂 Black ‐ Arizona 44.1%, U.S. average 46.3%.
Further details on homeownership rates by race and ethnicity are presented in Table 10.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
15
Table 10: Arizona and U.S. Homeownership Rate by Race and Ethnicity
Homeownership Rate
Homeownership Rate by Race and Ethnicity Arizona U.S.
All Households 68.0% 66.2%
White Alone 71.3% 71.3%
Black or African American Alone 44.1% 46.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 61.2% 55.7%
Asian Alone 57.0% 53.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders
Alone 46.8% 45.5%
Some Other Race Alone 52.6% 40.4%
Hispanic or Latino (of Any Race) 55.0% 45.7%
Not Hispanic or Latino 70.8% 68.1%
Source: 2000 Census, Summary File 4.
Compiled by: Arizona Department of Housing 3/4/2004
Housing Quality and Affordability
Housing quality and affordability is measured by the following three criteria:
􀂃􈍐 Persons or families living in units with physical defects (lacking a complete kitchen or bath); or
􀂃􈍐 Persons or families living in overcrowded conditions (greater than 1.01 person/room); or
􀂃􈍐 Persons or families are cost burdened (paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing,
including utilities.
Using the above criteria, it is clear that housing quality and affordability problems in Arizona are more
severe than the nation as a whole:
􀂃􈌱 1.1% of homes in Arizona Lack complete plumbing facility, as compared to only 0.6% nationally.
􀂃􈌳 38.7% of renters in Arizona pay 30% or more of their incomes for rent, as compared to 36.8%
nationally. The problem of cost burdened households is widespread and most contributes to the
inability of a lower income households to live adequately with their incomes.
􀂃􈌴 4.4% of households in Arizona live in overcrowded conditions as opposed to only 3% nationally.
􀂃􈌴 4.2% of households in Arizona live in severely overcrowded conditions as opposed to only 2.7%
nationally.
More details on housing quality and affordability criteria are presented in the following table:
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
16
Table 11: Housing Quality Characteristics
Housing Quality Characteristics
(Number of
Housing
Units)
Arizona
(% of Total
Housing
Units)
Arizona
(% of Total
Housing
Units)
U.S.
Lacking Complete Plumbing Facility 21,088 1.1% 0.6%
Lacking Complete Kitchen Facility 20,999 1.1% 0.7%
Paying 30% or More for Housing Cost ‐
Owners (Unaffordable)
233,355 22.6% 21.8%
Paying 30% or More for Rent ‐ Renters
(Unaffordable)
233,793 38.7% 36.8%
1.1 to 1.5 Persons Per Room (Overcrowded) 83,298 4.4% 3.0%
1.51 or More Persons Per Room (Severely
Overcrowded)
80,394 4.2% 2.7%
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security and Arizona Department of Housing.
NON‐METROPOLITAN ARIZONA
For the purpose of this study, metropolitan Arizona is consisted of Maricopa and Pima Counties and non‐metropolitan
(or rural) Arizona of the remaining 13 counties.
In general, the non‐metropolitan area of Arizona is much smaller in terms of population and economic
activity. It has higher poverty rate, higher housing quality problems, higher concentration of minorities’
population, lower job growth, and lower median household income. Specific demographic, economic and
housing differences between non‐metropolitan and metropolitan areas of Arizona are presented in tables
12, 13 and 14.
Population (Table 12):
􀂃􈍔 The 2003 estimated non‐metro population of Arizona was 1,322,045, which is about 70% smaller than
total metro population of 4,307,825.
􀂃􈍍 Minority population comprises 37.3% of the non‐metro areas’ total population, as compared to 31.6%
for the metro areas.
􀂃􈍔 The share of Hispanic ethnicity as a percent of total population for the non‐metro Arizona is 28.2%, as
compared to 25.8% for the metro areas.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
17
Table 12: Population
Selected Indicators Non‐Metropolitan Arizona Metropolitan Arizona
2003 Total Population 1,322,045 4,307,825
% of Total State Population in
1990 23.9% 76.1%
% of Total State Population in
2000 23.7% 76.3%
% of Total State Population in
2003 23.5% 76.5%
Total Minority Population (%) 37.3% 31.6%
Hispanic Ethnicity (%) 28.2% 25.8%
Source: 2000 Census, and Arizona Department of Housing.
Income, Poverty and Unemployment Rate (Table 13):
􀂃􈍐 Per capita income in the non‐metro areas of Arizona is significantly lower than metro areas: $15,618
versus $21,720.
􀂃􈍐 Poverty rate in the non‐metro areas is much higher than the metro‐areas: 19.0% versus 12.4%.
􀂃􈍕 Unemployment rate in the non‐metro areas is 8.9%, which is significantly higher than 4.8% for the
metro areas.
Table 13: Income, Employment and Unemployment Rate
Selected Indicators Non‐Metropolitan Arizona Metropolitan Arizona
Per Capita Income $15,618 $21,720
Poverty Rate 1999 19.0% 12.4%
% of Arizona Labor Force
(2003) 19.9% 80.1%
Unemployment Rate (2003) 8.9% 4.8%
Source: 2000 Census, and Arizona Department of Housing.
Housing and Housing Quality (Table 14):
􀂃􈍈 Homeownership rate in the non‐metro areas of the state is 72.3%, which is significantly higher than
the 66.8% for the metro areas.
􀂃􈍁 A sizable portion of the housing in the non‐metro areas of Arizona is comprised of manufactured
housing and mobile homes – 28.8%, as compared to only 8.5% for the metro areas.
􀂃􈍔 The non‐metro residents have to deal with more housing quality problems than metro residents:
o Plumbing Problems – 3.3% versus 0.5 %.
o Lack of Complete Kitchen Facilities – 2.9% versus 0.6%.
o Overcrowded Conditions – 5.2% to 4.1%, and
o Severely Overcrowded Conditions – 4.9% to 4.0%
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
18
Further details regarding housing quality comparisons are presented in Table 14:
Table 14: Housing and Housing Quality
Selected Indicators Non‐Metropolitan Arizona Metropolitan Arizona
Homeownership Rate (2000) 72.3% 66.8%
Manufactured Housing/Mobile
Homes as % of Total Housing
Units 28.8% 8.5%
% of Homes Lacking Complete
Plumbing Facility 3.3% 0.5%
% of Homes Lacking Complete
Kitchen Facility 2.9% 0.6%
Paying 30% or More for
Housing Cost ‐ Owners
(Unaffordable) 22.0% 22.7%
Paying 30% or More for Rent ‐
Renters (Unaffordable) 33.8% 39.8%
1.1 to 1.5 Persons Per Room
(Overcrowded) 5.2% 4.1%
1.51 or More Persons Per Room
(Severely Overcrowded) 4.9% 4.0%
Source: 2000 Census, and Arizona Department of Housing.
Non‐Metropolitan Minority Concentration Census Tracts
Table 15 contains a list of census tracts for the non‐metro counties of Arizona (off –Indian Reservations),
each having a minority population concentration ratio of 75% or higher (or the minority population rate
of at least 200 percent of the state minority population rate of 36.2%). The primary minority group in all
of the targeted census tracts is Hispanics.
The data presented in Table 15 also reveals that there is a strong relationship between minority
population concentration, poverty rate and income. For example, the majority of the selected census tracts
with high concentration of minorities’ population also had higher poverty rates. Median family incomes
in these census tracts were at low and moderate levels.
The data presented in Table 15 have been extracted from the various data tables made available on the
Web site of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). The Council is a formal
interagency body empowered to prescribe uniform principles, standards, and report forms for the federal
examination of financial institutions by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and to make
recommendations to promote uniformity in the supervision of financial institutions.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
19
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data as an Indicator of Discrimination
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data by county is not readily available for rural Arizona
counties. Such data is only available for the five Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) of Phoenix‐Mesa
MSA, Tucson MSA, Flagstaff, AZ‐UT MSA , Las Vegas, NV‐AZ MSA and Yuma MSA. Although lending
data by census tracts is not available for rural counties, we believe that patterns and conclusions
concerning lending practices in areas of minority concentration in Yuma and Flagstaff MSAs can be
extrapolated to other parts of the State, while still considering circumstances specific to each region.
The HMDA data for the two study areas shows disparities in the number of applications submitted,
denied and withdrawn or closed.
Table 15: Minority High Concentration Census Tracts
County
Census
Tract Code
Tract
Population
Tract
Minority %
White
Population
Tract
Minority
Population
American
Indian
Population
Hispanic
Population
% Below
Poverty
level
Tract
Median
Family
Income %
Tract
Income
Level
Cochise 6 3,375 75.0 844 2,531 101 2,363 36.2 62.8 Moderate
Cochise 7 4,052 85.2 600 3,452 5 3,416 33.8 76.0 Moderate
Cochise 8 4,951 85.3 730 4,221 23 4,123 35.4 71.0 Moderate
Cochise 9 6,759 92.6 502 6,257 15 6,170 40.6 59.3 Moderate
Gila 13 1,563 75.7 380 1,183 12 1,145 25.6 84.1 Middle
Pinal 19 2,332 83.4 388 1,944 123 1,567 37.1 57.2 Moderate
Pinal 20 8,990 81.4 1,670 7,320 202 6,594 27.6 60.2 Moderate
Santa Cruz 9961.02 12,875 81.7 2,352 10,523 30 10,288 14.0 97.5 Middle
Santa Cruz 9962 4,147 93.3 280 3,867 5 3,815 35.0 68.0 Moderate
Santa Cruz 9963 7,944 94.5 440 7,504 8 7,442 31.0 62.1 Moderate
Santa Cruz 9964.01 3,645 95.7 157 3,488 6 3,466 32.3 80.0 Moderate
Santa Cruz 9964.02 4,999 94.5 276 4,723 19 4,664 38.5 60.1 Moderate
Yuma 2 3,926 76.9 906 3,020 75 2,766 17.8 96.5 Middle
Yuma 3.01 3,839 78.3 832 3,007 33 2,768 24.5 89.7 Middle
Yuma 3.02 4,713 85.2 698 4,015 20 3,765 45.8 63.9 Moderate
Yuma 4.02 3,563 85.8 507 3,056 26 2,941 29.1 86.4 Middle
Yuma 7 4,858 78.1 1,066 3,792 27 3,567 27.4 71.3 Moderate
Yuma 114.01 8,091 99.0 84 8,007 4 7,988 34.0 68.0 Moderate
Yuma 115.01 2,705 83.1 457 2,248 475 1,727 40.0 70.0 Moderate
Yuma 115.02 7,305 96.0 292 7,013 27 6,939 26.4 81.0 Middle
Yuma 116 5,024 98.9 56 4,968 11 4,944 38.1 38.1 Low
Source: FFIEC and Arizona Department of Housing.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
20
The Flagstaff MSA
Two groups of census tracts were selected for comparison and analysis purposes. Each group had five
census tracts. The census tracts in group1 had much higher poverty and minority concentration rates,
than in group 2.
The data in Table 16 shows significant differences in the pattern of lending practices, as summarized in
the last two columns:
􀂃􈍌 Loan origination or approval rates as a percent of total number of loans (column 8) in group 1 has a
range of zero to 54.8%, as compared to 62.3% to 70.3% for group 2. There is a clear pattern indicating
that loan origination rates in group 2 were higher than in group 1.
􀂃􈍔 The application denial rates, as a percent of all applications (column 9), is much higher for group 1,
than group 2 ‐‐ 23.3% to 87.2% for group 1, compared to 8.8% to 17.3% for group 2.
Our conclusion is that at least part of the differences in the loan originations and loan denial rates
between group 1 (the high poverty area) and group 2 (the low poverty area) could be associated with
discrimination practices in lending.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
21
Table 16: Flagstaff MSA, 2002 HMDA Data
Group 1
Loan
Originated
Approved,
Not
Accepted
App
Denied
App
Withdrawn
Files Closed for
Incompleteness
Total Number
of
Applications
Loan
Originated as
% of Total
Number of
Loans
App Denied as
% of Total
Number of
Loans
CT 3 261 40 111 56 8 476 54.8% 23.3%
CT 17 168 47 96 50 8 369 45.5% 26.0%
CT 22 38 16 52 8 3 117 32.5% 44.4%
CT 23 4 19 29 2 0 54 7.4% 53.7%
CT 24 0 9 68 1 0 78 0.0% 87.2%
Total 471 131 356 117 19 1,094 43.1% 32.5%
Average 94.2 26.2 71.2 23.4 3.8 218.8 ‐ ‐
Group 2
CT 1 376 44 61 49 5 535 70.3% 11.4%
CT 6 625 87 78 88 12 890 70.2% 8.8%
CT 7 300 45 70 53 8 476 63.0% 14.7%
CT 9 223 39 49 37 10 358 62.3% 13.7%
CT 14 555 92 123 95 16 881 63.0% 14.0%
Total 2,079 307 381 322 51 3,140 66.2% 12.1%
Average 415.8 61.4 76.2 64.4 10.2 628 ‐ ‐
Flagstaff
MSA 6,923 1,120 2,000 1,287 215 11,545 60.0% 17.3%
Source: FFIEC, 2002 HMDA data, and Arizona Department of Housing.
The Yuma MSA
Two groups of census tracts were selected for comparison and analysis purposes. Each group had five census tracts.
The census tracts in Group1 had much higher poverty and minority concentration rates, than Group 2.
The data in table 17 shows significant differences in the pattern of lending practices in the two areas, as summarized
in the last two columns of that table:
􀂃􈍌 Loan origination or approval rates as a percent of total number of loans (column 8) has a range of 40.4% to 53.9%
in Group 1, as compared to 50.2% to 64.9% in Group 2. There is a clear pattern that loan origination rates in
Group 2 were higher than in Group 1.
􀂃􈍔 The application denial rates, as a percent of all applications (column 9), is much higher for Group 1, than Group
2 – 29.4% to 38.2% for Group 1, as compared to 17.3% to 32.4% for Group 2.
Our conclusion is that at least part of the differences in the loan originations and loan denial rates between Group 1
(the high poverty area) and Group 2 (the low poverty area) could be associated with discrimination practices in
lending.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
22
Table 17: Yuma MSA, 2002 HMDA Data
Group 1
Loan
Originated
Approved,
Not
Accepted
App
Denied
App
Withdrawn
Files Closed
for
Incompleten
ess
Total Number of
Applications
Loan
Originated
as % of
Total
Number of Loans
App Denied
as % of
Total
Number
of Loans
CT 4.02 168 40 159 43 6 416 40.4% 38.2%
CT 7 67 12 61 24 2 166 40.4% 36.7%
CT 114.01 453 70 230 63 24 840 53.9% 27.4%
CT 115.01 184 19 106 48 3 360 51.1% 29.4%
CT 16 82 6 64 36 4 192 42.7% 33.3%
Total
954 147 620 214 3
9
1,974
48.3% 31.4%
Average 1,90.8 29.4 124 42.8 7.8 394.8 ‐ ‐
Group 2
CT 2 104 17 67 18 1 207 50.2% 32.4%
CT 6 213 33 79 43 10 378 56.3% 20.9%
CT 11 204 36 105 51 9 405 50.4% 25.9%
CT 109 777 110 207 81 22 1,197 64.9% 17.3%
CT 111 815 124 329 124 22 1414 57.6% 23.3%
Total 2,113 320 787 317 64 3,601 58.7% 21.9%
Average 422.6 64 157.4 63.4 12.8 720.2 ‐ ‐
Yuma
County 5,521 842 2,469 934 196 9,962 55.4% 24.8%
Note: CT 4.02 is CT 4; CT 114.01 is CT 114, and CT 115.01 is CT 115.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
23
CONCLUSIONS
The correlation between low income and minority status is very high throughout Arizona. The incidence
of minority households experiencing housing problems of cost burden, overcrowding or substandard
conditions is also very high. However, it can be said that as both minority and non‐minority households
move down the income scale, the incidence of housing problems increases dramatically, and appears not
to be so much a racial matter as an income matter. Since the percent of minorities who are low income far
exceeds their proportionate numbers in the general population, minorities do suffer disproportionately in
terms of their basic need of adequate, affordable shelter. It is here where the urgent issues of affordable,
standard housing and fair housing intersect, and must be addressed by all sectors involved in housing
development. Those agencies—government agencies with funds for affordable housing activities,
nonprofits with affordable housing resources, and private sector actors in housing —developers, builders,
property owners and managers ‐ must not hide from the harsh realities of real suffering that are hidden
behind the statistics in the foregoing paragraphs. Where resources can be allocated to reduce the
incidence of housing problems in Arizona, they need to be so allocated, and they should be allocated with
the intent of alleviating the disproportionate problems of minority households.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice
24
SECTION THREE
EVALUATION OF THE STATE OF
ARIZONA’S FAIR HOUSING
PROFILE
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Three
25
Statistics provided by the Civil Rights Division of the Office of the State Attorney General and anecdotal
information provided by FHIP grantees in Arizona and respondents to the February 2004 fair housing
survey performed by the Arizona Department of Housing begin to describe the extent and nature of fair
housing discrimination in Arizona. The phrase, “begin to describe” is used, because it is widely
recognized that most fair housing offenses are not reported, and frequently, victims of discrimination do
not understand they are being discriminated against. Because of these circumstances, it is easier to draw
conclusions about the nature of discrimination, than it is to draw conclusions concerning the frequency
with which discrimination occurs.
DATA FROM THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE
Table 18 below enumerates, by county, the incidence of the number of charges filed for the September
1990 ‐ November 1995 and September 2000 ‐ April 2004 periods. Contrary to our expectations, there has
been a decline in the number of charges filed, both in terms of total and on an annual basis.
The reader should be aware that fully half the State’s population resides in Maricopa County (Phoenix
and suburbs) and another one‐third reside in Pima County (Tucson). These two counties are also where
the Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division maintains offices, and where nonprofit fair housing
advocacy agencies, which are FHIP grantees, are active in community education and in handling fair
housing complaints.
Table 18 ‐ Geographical Location of Housing Complaints Filed
September 1990 ‐ November 1995 and Sept. 1990 – April 2004
No. of Files Charged
Sept. 1990 – Nov. 1995
No. of Files Charged
Sept. 2000 – April 2004
County
Community
Total
Annual
Total
Annual
Maricopa Phoenix and
suburbs
413 79.9
259 70.6
Pima Tucson 325 62.9 157 42.8
Yavapai Prescott 9 1.7 9 2.5
Coconino Flagstaff 7 1.4 7 1.9
Yuma Yuma 6 1.2 8 2.2
Cochise Sierra Vista 3 0.6 6 1.6
Gila Payson 3 0.6 2 0.5
Mohave Bullhead City 2 0.4 1 0.3
All Other
Counties
0 0.0
0 0.0
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Three
26
Tables 19 and 20 display information on the circumstances under which discrimination allegedly occurs
and the incidence of discrimination against the various protected classes. Based on the statistics presented
below, it is reasonable to conclude that the main issues in complaints pending were related to
terms/conditions/privileges relating to services and facilities in rental properties. The primary alleged
basis of complaints was related to disability, race and national origin.
Table 19 ‐ Alleged Issues in Complaints Pending
as of April 30, 2004
ALLEGED ISSUES Number % of Total
Terms/conditions/privileges relating to rental property 109 14.8%
False representation 29 3.9%
Discriminatory refusal to rent 95 12.9%
Otherwise deny or make available 87 11.8%
Services and facilities related to rental properties 47 6.4%
Terms/conditions/privileges relating to services
and facilities in rental properties 304 41.3%
Retaliation 1 0.1%
Reasonable accommodations 64 8.7%
Total 736 100.0%
Table 20 ‐ Alleged Bases of Complaints
Pending as of April 30, 2004
BASIS of COMPLAINT Number % of Total
Familial Status 34 6.4%
Race 107 20.1%
National Origin 91 17.1%
Disability 195 36.6%
Sex 20 3.8%
Mental Handicap 12 2.3%
Retaliation 48 9.0%
Religion
13 2.4%
Color 13 2.4%
Total 533 100.0%
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Three
27
DATA FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING SURVEY
The survey performed by the Arizona Department of Housing in February 2004 (see Appendix) provided
useful anecdotal reporting on the extent and nature of discrimination in Arizona. The questions in this
survey, and a summary of the responses received are listed below.
Question One: What area do you serve?
The respondents serve Maricopa, Pima, Coconino, Cochise, Yavapai, Apache and Navajo counties.
Question Two: Do you believe that housing in the communities served by your organization is
generally available without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial
status and national origin?
􀂃􈍁 A number of respondents agreed, not surprisingly, that discrimination does exist in the
communities, which they serve.
􀂃􈍔 The main types of discrimination identified included discrimination on the basis of disability,
followed by race and family size.
Question Three: To the extent discrimination does exist, please describe the forms this discrimination
takes.
􀂃􈍄 Discrimination by disability ‐ Respondents described discrimination against the disability
community as usually involving a landlord’s unwillingness to make reasonable accommodations
for the tenant. Typical complaints fall in the categories of refusal to adapt public spaces, refusal to
allow the disabled tenant to make modifications to the unit, and refusal to allow the disabled
tenant to have an “assistive” animal.
􀂃􈍄 Discrimination by Familial Status, Racial and Ethnicity Basis – Familial status appears to be the
most problematic form of discrimination currently occurring, although it often is a disguise for
racial discrimination. “...the occupancy standard law passed by the Arizona legislature a few years ago
provides an open opportunity for racial discrimination and disparate treatment based on familial
status...The law only allows two persons per bedroom, and landlords often preclude large families from
renting a two or even three bedroom apartment. Large families are often Hispanic, African American or
Asian, who cannot afford to rent three or four bedroom apartments...Hiding behind the law, landlords who
may not want to rent to persons of Hispanic, African American or Asian origin can invoke the law and say
there are too many people in the family to qualify for the unit.”
􀂃􈍌 Lack of political support by for low income housing projects.
􀂃􈍍 Multiple respondents cited NIMBY as a major, ongoing problem, and placed part of the blame for
its success on the lack of political will on the part of elected officials who need to make permitting
and funding decisions.
􀂃􈎠 Respondents cited redlining by lenders and insurance companies, and less blatant practices such
as losing paperwork, demanding excessive documentation, stalling on the decision, and
stipulating terms and conditions that are not imposed on most applicants.
􀂃􈍒 Respondents noted that discrimination takes place in renting and purchasing housing, financing
and appraisals, and purchasing homeowners insurance.
􀂃􈍆 Finally, staff of the Civil Rights Division of the State Attorney General’s Office offered their own
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Three
28
list of observations of the nature of discrimination in the State, based on their extensive
experience in litigating and investigating complaints.
o Justice courts tend to favor the landlord and the landlord’s attorney, and there is growing
suspicion that families and minority households suffer disproportionately at these
hearings.
o Also affecting the renter are the amendments to the Arizona Landlord and Tenant Act
allowing nearly summary evictions.
o Enforcement agencies do not have a presence in rural areas.
o Relaxation of standards for adult complexes, which will further hurt families trying to
rent.
o CC&R’s in subdivisions that have these rules, allow the owner to exercise rights of first
refusal to sell.
o Non‐English speaking households cannot readily find documents that describe their
rights written in their native languages.
Question Four: The Fair Housing statutes protect persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
disability, familial status and national origin. Do you find that some of these categories experience
discrimination more than others? Which categories? Are there typical ways in which they are
discriminated against?
􀂃􈍔 The consensus to this question, which was discussed under Question Three, is that
discrimination against people with disability tops the list of the types of discrimination.
􀂃􈍔 The remarks by one respondent is also shared by several others: “Lying about apartment
availability, asking for higher deposits, harassment by making racial slurs, telling handicapped
people that no apartment is available, while there is apartment for handicapped available”.
Question Five: What positive things can you say about the status of racial discrimination in housing in
your community? Are there positive trends taking place?
􀂃􈍔 There has been some success in the area of partnering with industry professionals to reduce
housing discrimination.
􀂃􈍍 More positive voices and increase in racial mix in various communities.
Question Six: What recommendations do you have for actions that would reduce the level and kinds
of discrimination in housing?
Among the responses were these suggestions:
􀂃􈍍 More education for landlords and apartment management regarding issues related to
discrimination in housing and cultural sensitivity.
􀂃􈍍 More education for landlords and managers of subsidized units. Also, better treatment by
apartment officials of mentally ill and people with assistive animals.
􀂃􈍈 Holding landlords/owners and businesses more accountable to insure fair practices.
􀂃􈍍 More education and marketing making people aware of their rights.
􀂃􈍍 More education, awareness about their rights, TV commercials, and radio announcements and
advertisement that reach renters and landlords.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Three
29
􀂃􈍅 Education and campaign for affordable housing.
􀂃􈍐 Protection of seniors from noise and drugs.
􀂃􈍈 Have examples shown of prosecuted landlords.
􀂃􈍍 More education and awareness for people who do discriminate.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice
30
SECTION FOUR
IDENTIFICATION OF
IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR
HOUSING CHOICE IN THE
STATE OF ARIZONA
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Four
31
We humans seem to have a propensity to make substantial efforts to surround ourselves with people who
look like and act like ourselves. We immediately evaluate a person by their looks, we make assumptions,
and we fit them into our own categories. Likely, we are genetically “hard‐wired” to discern who is one of
“us”, and who is not, and we often assume that people who are different are of questionable character.
But the instincts and behaviors which may have served us well tens of thousands of years ago now cause
immense hardship, anger, and disrespect as we continually scan our surroundings to decide who is “us”
and who is “them”, and then act on that decision in ways that exclude people from our communities,
neighborhoods, and apartment buildings. For instance, consider recent data accumulated on the topic of
inter‐racial evaluations by the University of Chicago, which was published in the January/February 1996
edition of the Poverty & Race Research Action Council’s bi‐monthly newsletter:
“Survey data by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center (NORC) confirm
that white evaluations of blacks and Latinos are strongly negative, especially when compared to
white self‐ratings. Almost one‐third of whites surveyed thought blacks and Latinos were
unintelligent, while only one fifth thought they were intelligent. (The rest rated them in a middle
category.) By contrast, nearly three‐fifths of whites rated their own racial Group as intelligent, and
only 6% rated them as unintelligent. On another question inquiring whether various identity
Groups were hard working or lazy, whites again had a high opinion of their own work habits (57%
hard working, only 5% lazy), while denigrating Latinos and blacks: for Latinos, whites’ ratings
were 26% hard working, 37% lazy; for blacks, whites’ ratings were 18% hard working, 47% lazy.
While the NORC survey does not convey a completely negative assessment by whites, it does
confirm the widespread feeling among African Americans and Latinos that the white community
does not think of them with respect, and that this judgment carries over into behavior.”
In an effort to overcome fair housing discrimination and similar disrespectful behavior, we must base our
actions on the following question: If a person or family has the ability to pay for a particular dwelling and
is willing to live in that dwelling as a good neighbor, then how can that person or family be denied that
dwelling, no matter which racial or social class they may come from? Our efforts must be dedicated to
reducing the likelihood of that denial happening to the lowest incidence possible, regardless of physical
characteristics.
The State of Arizona accepts the responsibility to identify impediments and to identify actions to reduce
or eliminate those impediments, as appropriate to the State level of government. In that respect, we must,
in addition to contemplating actions at the State level, also turn to Arizona Department of Housing CDBG
and HOME local government subgrantees to require their support and action to further identify and
remove impediments, as a condition of funding. All activities to ameliorate the identified impediments
will be undertaken through a partnership of the State, its grantee subrecipients, fair housing advocates,
the Arizona Housing Network and others. We now turn to a discussion of the impediments to fair
housing choice as they exist in Arizona, and a list of recommended actions to ameliorate these
impediments, along with time objectives for implementation.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Four
32
LIST OF IMPEDIMENTS AND ACTION STEPS
Impediment Number One: Lack Of Knowledge Of Fair Housing Laws By Housing Consumers
Recommendations for Amelioration or Removal of Impediment Number One:
􀂃􈍓 Send Public Service announcements (PSAs) to local media in all areas receiving funding from
Arizona Department of Housing grant programs periodically that cover fair housing issues.
􀂃􈍃 Continue to distribute the fair housing brochures on fair housing rights, both in English and Spanish,
to all organizations which serve low income, disabled and minority groups.
􀂃􈍄 Develop LEP (Limited English Proficiency) Plan that maximizes opportunities for publicizing fair
housing protections.
􀂃􈍃 Continue to participate in the Arizona Fair Housing Partnership and actively advocate for more rural
initiatives.
􀂃􈍃 Continue investments in statewide education efforts in all rural counties.
Implementation Timeframes for Impediment Number One:
􀂃􈍔 The PSAs and brochures will be circulated to the media periodically, commencing September 2004.
􀂃􈍅 Education efforts contract will be re-evaluated and renewed during August 2004.
􀂃􈍔 The Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan will be developed and completed by December 2004.
􀂃􈍁 Attendance at the Arizona Fair Housing Partnership is an ongoing responsibility of the department.
Impediment Number Two: Lack Of Knowledge Of Fair Housing Laws By Housing Industry Agents:
Realtors, Builders, Landlords, Management Agents, Lenders And Insurers.
Recommendation for Amelioration or Removal of Impediment Number Two:
􀂃􈍁 Assess the success of ADOH’s fair housing education plan (revamped in 2003) and re-examine the
segments of the industry most in need of education and develop a plan to provide training to these
groups statewide. Key in this effort will be a continued department commitment to training in all
rural counties and training at department compliance events for property managers. Additionally,
pending the re-evaluation scheduled for August, the Department will continue to require its
education provider to target housing industry agents as well as housing consumers in its overall
training offerings.
Implementation Timeframes for Impediment Number Two – September 2004 – September 2007.
􀂃􈍅 Education efforts contract will be re-evaluated and renewed during August 2004.
Impediment Number Three: Lack of Hard Data on the Extent of Discrimination in the Areas of
Homebuyer Insurance, Zoning and Permitting Processes
Recommendations for Amelioration or Removal of Impediment Number Three:
􀂃􈍉 Initiate activities that will result in an empirical study of the availability and terms of homeowner
insurance in predominately minority and low income census tracts. Interest by the State Department
of Insurance, ASU and/or UofA faculty in designing and performing the analysis will be sought.
􀂃􈍁 Approach the Arizona Planning Association and Arizona’s institutions of higher education to seek
their commitment to a study of the effects of zoning and permitting on fair housing in a small sample
of rural Arizona communities.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Four
33
􀂃􈍁 Arizona Department of Housing will continue to provide technical assistance on how to include
meaningful housing elements in rural Arizona comprehensive plans.
Implementation Timeframes for Impediment Number Three:
􀂃􈍄 Discussions concerning the insurance and zoning studies will commence in September 2004 and
studies will be complete by September 2005.
Impediment Number Four: Testing Of Rental, Sales, Lending And Insurance Activities Is Intermittent,
And Does Not Usually Cover The State Outside Of Maricopa And Pima Counties.
Recommendations for Amelioration or Removal of Impediment Number Four:
􀂃􈍍 Meet with FHIP grantees and other fair housing advocates to determine which aspects of fair housing
are the highest priority to test, and which geographic locations are the highest priorities in which to
test. At least one urban and one rural area will be identified for testing. The cost of testing will be
determined and funding sources will be sought.
Implementation Timeframes for Impediment Number Four:
􀂃􈍍 Meetings to determine what to test and where to test, and the cost of a testing program will
commence in 2005. Funding for testing on priority issues and in priority locations will be sought
throughout the four-year duration of this Analysis of Impediments.
Impediment Number Five: Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) Attitudes Concerning Housing For Low
Income And Disabled Persons.
Recommendations for Amelioration or Removal of Impediment Number Five:
􀂃􈍓 Sponsor training for housing and disability community agencies and advocates, staff of local
governments, and other interested parties at which anti-NIMBY strategies will be discussed, using
models that have worked successfully in Arizona and elsewhere.
􀂃􈍅 Ensure that all ADOH-sponsored training includes strategies for housing developers to overcome
NIMBY attitudes including information on building public support for affordable housing projects.
􀂃􈍕 Undertake, in partnership with the Arizona Housing Commission, a public education campaign
about the importance of affordable housing to Arizona community health.
􀂃􈍃 Communities which receive CDBG and HOME funds will be advised that, as a result of receiving a
grant from Housing Department, the State will require the local government to advocate for and
support housing activities which benefit low income persons and persons covered by the fair housing
act. A planning process for implementing specific requirements and guidelines for grantees will be
undertaken.
Implementation Timeframes for Impediment Number Five:
􀂃􈍒 Recipients of 2005 and later year’s CDBG and HOME funds will be advised of the State’s
expectations concerning support of fair housing, and the state’s position as an anti–NIMBY
advocate. The planning process for the development of specific expectations will take place
before the 2005 grant award process and will be continuously revisited during future award
years.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice
34
SECTION FIVE
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FAIR
HOUSING ACTIVITIES
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Five
35
Both the public and private sectors in Arizona are actively working to remove impediments to fair
housing choice. These activities, some of which have been recently undertaken, and others which are
ongoing, are discussed below.
FEDERALLY FUNDED ACTIVITIES
Three Arizona agencies are recipients of Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) grants. These agencies
are all grateful for the opportunity to obtain and use these grants, which primarily fund the testing of
rental, new subdivision sales, and Group home activities. The three FHIP grantees are the Civil Rights
Division of the Office of the Arizona Attorney General, the Arizona Fair Housing Center, and the
Southern Arizona Housing Center. The activities of these agencies are primarily focused on the Phoenix
and Tucson metropolitan areas. The agencies are active advocates for fair housing issues, and provide
education, mediation and complaint services to the community. All three agencies expect to compete for
FHIP funding, if there are new appropriations for the program.
STATE OF ARIZONA ACTIVITIES
The foremost participant in activities which further fair housing in Arizona is the Office of the Attorney
General. The Civil Rights Division has the authority, as a designated “substantially equivalent agency”,
to actively investigate and litigate fair housing violations throughout the State. In its recent review of the
fair housing enforcement functions of the Civil Rights Division, the Director of the San Francisco HUD
Office Fair Housing Enforcement Center, lauded the work of the Attorney General’s staff:
“We would also like to take this opportunity to convey our impression that the vast majority of work
undertaken by the Arizona Office of the Attorney General ‐ Civil Rights Section/Housing Division
during this evaluation period has been of the highest quality...your work reflects a commendable
management ethic not to sacrifice the quality of the investigation or the rights or remedies of
complainants, for ‘numbers’...We also believe that your agency’s willingness to pursue litigation of
cause cases which fail at conciliation puts your agency at the forefront of FHAP agencies monitored
by this Region, if not nationally.”
The Arizona Department of Housing has also actively worked to further fair housing, by funding
activities which provide forums for discussion and education. The Arizona Housing Summit, which
attracted persons from around the state involved in housing, provided workshops on fair housing issues.
The State has also funded fair housing activities out of the Housing Trust Fund in 2002 and 2003. These
activities are listed below:
􀂃􈍓 Southwest Fair Housing Council received $265,000 in 2003 to use for education and advocacy
programs related to fair housing in the 13 rural counties of Arizona.
􀂃􈍓 Southern Arizona Housing Center received $48,633 in 2002 to further fair housing education in
several central and southeastern Arizona rural counties.
􀂃􈍁 Arizona Fair Housing Center received $49,225 to provide fair housing training in Maricopa,
Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo and Apache and counties
􀂃􈍃 Community Legal Services received $19,263 to work on fair housing education issues in La Paz,
Mohave and Yuma counties.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Five
36
The Arizona Department of Real Estate has also actively been involved in fair housing, primarily through
education of the real estate community. In 1993, the Department sponsored an Affordable and Fair
Housing Symposium, which attracted more than six hundred real estate licensees from around the state.
The premise of the meeting was that “everyone in the United States should have an equal opportunity to
obtain adequate housing” and that real estate licensees must help facilitate this goal, and further to teach
real estate licensees about discrimination and the subtle and not‐so‐subtle forms it takes. Many of us
remember a presentation at the opening panel discussion by Carol Carpenter, a former Maricopa County
Supervisor and an attorney. She vividly described how she was discriminated against as she searched for
rental housing for herself and her young daughter. The Symposium then broke into workshops which
included sessions on the National Association of Realtor’s Voluntary Affirmative Marketing Agreement,
“How to Practice Safe Lending”, how testing is performed, and “Disabilities and the Law: What are Your
Responsibilities?”
In 1991, the Department of Real Estate, with the active support of the Commerce Department, formed the
Joint Committee on Fair Housing. This Group participated in the 1993 Symposium, as well as actively
planned and participated in the 1995 Housing Summit. The Joint Committee’s membership included
representatives from the Homebuilders, Realtors®, Multihousing, Mortgage Bankers, CHRB, LISC, HUD,
RECD, the state Departments of Real Estate, Commerce, Insurance, Banking and the Attorney General’s
Office.
In 1994, the Committee oversaw the creation of a fair housing poster and brochure, a transit advertising
campaign, and the creation of the format and recruitment of presenters for the Housing Summit. Other
recent activities included the design and delivery of a six hour fair housing instructor development
workshop, which was attended by over 100 persons. At the beginning of 1995, as an outcome of the
Arizona Housing Summit, the Joint Committee began to transform into the Arizona Housing Network,
which envisions functioning as a neutral body of parties that represent the interests of affordable housing
that all sectors of the housing industry could turn to for assistance.
The Arizona Housing Network has the mission “to provide responsible public‐private leadership in fair
and affordable housing issues through education, research and public outreach in order to enhance our
communities”. The Network will function as a statewide body that will work to establish and coordinate
local coalitions. The Network will work to be inclusive, seeking statewide representation from the public
and private for profit and nonprofit sectors and public entities. The first year goals of the Network are to:
􀂃􈍃 Complete a publication on how to buy a house, sponsor fair housing posters, and pursue 501(c)(3)
status.
􀂃􈍅 Establish relations with existing local coalitions and incubate new coalitions
􀂃􈍓 Sponsor a poster and essay contest with an affordable/fair housing day at the State Capitol.
􀂃􈍂 Better coordinate and market existing training programs.
􀂃􈍐 Produce an affordable housing newsletter.
􀂃􈍐 Participate in the preparation of this Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing.
􀂃􈍐 Provide advice on federal, state, and local housing policy, laws, regulations and programs
􀂃􈍐 Play an ombudsman, mediation role with public and private organizations.
􀂃􈍐 Perform fundraising
􀂃􈍅 Elevate public awareness on fair housing and affordable housing issues.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Five
37
During the Housing Summit, more than eighty persons from throughout Arizona volunteered to be part
of the Housing Network. The levels of energy and commitment, plus a general feeling of enthusiasm,
strongly indicate that the network will provide a substantial stimulus for the development of both fair
and affordable housing initiatives throughout Arizona.
The Department of Real Estate also developed the script and recruited the “actors” for highly regarded
fair housing mock trials, which dramatically portrayed fair housing violations. These trials were
presented around the state, and were attended by 1,700 persons, most of whom were real estate licensees.
The Department believes that the mock trials were the catalyst for a surge in fair housing education
throughout Arizona.
The Department of Real Estate sponsors many fair housing courses, which are offered over the course of
a year. As part of their VAMA agreements, homebuilders, real estate licensees and rental property
managers must all receive at least three hours of fair housing training, over a period of two years. The
courses offered cover basic fair housing tenets, disability statutes, property management and fair
housing, occupancy standards, and fair credit.
PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES
Both the Arizona Association of Realtors® and the Central Arizona Homebuilders are participants in
Voluntary Affirmative Marketing Agreements (VAMA). These agreements have the purpose of
acknowledging that fair housing violations do exist, and the housing industry must be educated and
vigilant to assure that all persons have equal access to housing. The Realtors® and Homebuilders require
the participation of their members in the courses described above, develop and distribute brochures and
publications on fair housing issues, monitor advertising for compliance and actively participate in forums
and the Arizona Housing Network, which has replaced the Joint Committee on Fair Housing.
In closing, the public and private sectors involved in housing in Arizona do actively participate in and
support fair housing efforts. As mentioned in many places throughout this document, fair housing’s
greatest enemy is ignorance, and the agencies mentioned in this section work hard to dispel myth and
ignorance about the protected classes.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice
38
APPENDIX
SURVEY OF STATEWIDE
FAIR HOUSING
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Appendix
39
To: Affordable Housing & Fair Housing Advocacy Groups in Arizona
Date: February 24, 2004
From: Ondrea, Barber, Technical Assistance Coordinator
Subject: SURVEY ON FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
The Department of Housing is currently in the process of preparing the HUD‐required analysis of
impediments to fair housing in Arizona and we need your assistance. Please complete the survey and
return it to Ondrea Barber at (602‐771‐1002), no later than Friday March 15, 2004. Your responses to this
survey will assist us in documenting existing impediments and will augment statistical data we are
collecting and formatting. Please feel free to attach additional comments, if you wish to do so.
1. What is your service area (city, county, etc.)?
2. Do you believe that housing in the communities served by your organization is generally
available without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial
status, and national origin?
.
3. To the extent that discrimination does exist, please describe the form(s) this discrimination takes:
Some examples include:
a. Lack of political support for affordable housing programs and/or fair housing efforts.
b. Not in my backyard (NIMBY) on location and/or funding of affordable housing.
c. Unavailability of sites suitably zoned for affordable housing, i.e.: manufactured housing,
higher densities.
d. Other zoning issues, such as requiring large lot sizes, dedicated parcels for parks, schools,
churches; expensive amenities, such as tile roofs, expensive facades.
e. Unwillingness of local lenders to underwrite mortgage loans and multifamily loans for
affordable units and low income households.
f. Unwillingness of homeowner insurance companies to underwrite insurance for low‐income
households in low income and/or racially impacted neighborhoods.
g. Steady stream of complaints about discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.
4. The Fair Housing statutes protect persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability,
familial status and national origin. Do you find that some of these categories experience
discrimination more than others? Which categories? Are there typical ways in which they are
discriminated against?
5. What positive things can you say about the status of racial discrimination in housing in your
community? Are there positive trends taking place?
6. What recommendations do you have for actions that would reduce the level and kinds of
discrimination in housing?
Please attach any additional comments.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

ANALYSIS of
IMPEDIMENTS
to FAIR HOUSING CHOICE
Arizona Department of Housing
1700 W. Washington, Suite 210
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602.771.1000 Phone
602.771.1002 Fax
602.771.1001 TTY This document is available in alternate
formats upon request.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Table of Contents
2
Section One: Introduction, Summary of Issues, & Conclusions ................................................... 3
Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................4
Summary of Fair Housing Issues ..............................................................................................................4
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................6
Section Two: Statistical Data on Demographics, Income, Poverty, Employment and Housing . 7
Statewide Demographic Data......................................................................................................................8
Population by Race and Ethnicity................................................................................................8
Population by Age..........................................................................................................................9
Arizona Income Data .....................................................................................................................9
Household Income by Income Category ..................................................................................10
Household Income by Race and Income Category..................................................................11
Poverty by Race and Ethnicity....................................................................................................11
Poverty and Disability .................................................................................................................12
Statewide Employment Profile .................................................................................................................13
Statewide Housing Profile .........................................................................................................................14
Homeownership by Race and Ethnicity....................................................................................14
Housing Quality and Affordability ...........................................................................................15
Non‐Metropolitan Arizona .......................................................................................................................16
Population ...........................................................................................................................................16
Income, Poverty and Unemployment Rate...............................................................................17
Housing and Housing Quality ...................................................................................................17
Non‐Metropolitan Minority Concentration Census Tracts ..................................................18
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data as an Indicator of Discrimination .............................19
The Flagstaff MSA.................................................................................................................20
The Yuma MSA .....................................................................................................................21
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................23
Section Three: Evaluation of the State of Arizona’s Fair Housing Profile ................................. 24
Data From the Arizona Attorney General’s Office ................................................................................25
Data From the Arizona Department of Housing Survey......................................................................27
Section Four: Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in the State of Arizona . 30
List of Impediments and Action Steps.....................................................................................................32
Section Five: Public and Private Fair Housing Activities ..................................................................34
Federally Funded Activities ......................................................................................................................35
State of Arizona Activities .........................................................................................................................35
Private Sector Activities .............................................................................................................................37
Appendix: Survey of Statewide Fair Housing Advocacy Organizations ........................................ 38
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice
3
Section One
INTRODUCTION,
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
& CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section One
4
INTRODUCTION
The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), requires that each state conduct an
analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within the State and to outline and take
appropriate, effective actions to ameliorate the identified impediments. The HUD definition of “fair
housing choice” means the ability of persons, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial
status or national origin, of similar incomes, to have available the same housing choices.
This analysis document was prepared by the Arizona Department of Housing, utilizing many sources of
information. These sources included:
􀂃􈍔 The 2000 United States Census.
􀂃􈍔 The 1995 ‐ 1996 Consolidated Plans prepared by the State of Arizona, City of Phoenix, Maricopa
County Consortium, Tucson/Pima County Consortium and the City of Yuma.
􀂃􈍔 The results of a survey of fair housing advocacy groups performed by the Arizona Department of
Housing in February 2004.
􀂃􈍖 Various reports on the effects of zoning, other land use controls and building controls on fair
housing and affordable housing, including a report written by Arizona State University faculty.
􀂃􈍈 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data obtained through Internet searches from the
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC) public data sources and reports.
􀂃􈍆 Fair housing complaint data supplied by the State Attorney General’s Office.
􀂃􈍄 Data on activities underway and recently undertaken which aim to educate persons in protected
classes and the various segments of the housing industry, about fair housing and the nature of
housing discrimination.
Several reports on the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice from other states, such as
Georgia, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii and others, were also reviewed, and some important ideas from
those reports were utilized in the compilation of data and analysis sections of his report.
SUMMARY OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
That housing discrimination is widely practiced throughout the United States and the State of Arizona is
no longer discussed in terms of whether discrimination exists, but rather, the nature and extent to which fair
housing discrimination exists and persists.
The responses to the Survey on Fair Housing Issues conducted by the Arizona Department of Commerce
in December 1995 (and contained in the 1997 Analysis of Impediments) confirm that Arizona is plagued
by housing discrimination against the seven protected classes of persons. Among the problems cited
were:
􀂃􈍎 NIMBY ‐ Not In My Back Yard attitudes against projects that serve lower income (“those people”
‐ shorthand for people of color) and disabled people, and the lack of political will and/or interest
to defuse community hostility.
􀂃􈍆 Frequently cited is the 1994 revision of the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act that
creates a presumption that occupancy limited to two persons per bedroom is reasonable as a
standard for compliance with the Fair Housing Act.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section One
5
􀂃􈍌 Landlord resistance to accommodating the disabled community, so that disabled renters can
easily navigate their units and the grounds of the buildings.
􀂃􈍌 Landlords screen callers by their surnames and respond that the unit is already rented.
􀂃􈍔 The lending community is described as reluctant to lend in lower income areas, which often are
predominantly or heavily minority.
􀂃􈍈 Homeowner insurance companies redline low income areas, charge higher rates for insurance, or
cancel for any kind of claim.
􀂃􈍄 Discrimination is often subtle, sometimes taking the form of discouraging remarks (to families ‐ “
this complex is very quiet”), grouping families or persons of color in one part of a complex, losing
paperwork and missing deadlines.
Among the issues described in earlier public input sessions were:
􀂃􈍔 The problem of discrimination is not singular; it is a combination of social and economic factors;
it stems from ignorance, prejudice, fears of the impacts of desegregation and change, plus a
paralysis and polarization of interest groups.
􀂃􈍗 We believe the problems in any affordable housing within Arizona to be complex and
interrelated. These problems include lack of industry and consumer education, inadequate
enforcement, resources, and socio‐economic factors in the Arizona state markets...some
discrimination is not visible, it is generational.
􀂃􈍔 There is a lack of knowledge throughout the landlord community regarding the relevant laws.
There is also a severe shortage of definite answers to specific questions that arise. Therefore the
answers are derived by litigation.
􀂃􈍗 We see segregation and fair housing to be two separate issues. In terms of segregation, there are
three problems: lack of education, affordability and the lack of effectiveness and integration in
existing governmental programs. In terms of fair housing, the primary problem is lack of
education from groups on all sides of the issues, including consumers (renters/buyers) sellers
(landlords, real estate agents, owners, lenders) and regulatory and nonprofit agencies.
􀂃􈍌 Lack of knowledge on the part of housing providers, housing seekers, landlords and tenants,
concerning the fair housing laws, the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), state tenant/landlord
laws. Historically, these laws only looked at solutions to problems of inaccessibility by
“grouping” rather than community approach. Lack of enforcement of laws and lack of
networking to identify current affordability and accessible housing.
There was consensus among the participants concerning the antidotes to these issues. These included
need for more education on what constitutes fair housing violations and to encourage more tolerance of
the protected classes, better coordination among advocacy and development agencies and between the
public and private sectors, more affordable housing, and more leadership, particularly from elected
officials.
This conclusion was also supported by data gathered by the Arizona Department of Housing for this
Analysis of Impediments. Based on these findings, the Arizona Department of Housing awarded $382,112
in 2002 and 2003 funds to educate people throughout the state in issues related to fair housing.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section One
6
CONCLUSIONS
The consensus is that the primary manner in which to fight discrimination is through education ‐ of
housing providers and consumers ‐ and to provide vigilant and timely enforcement of the fair housing
laws.
The remainder of this Analysis of Impediments looks at Arizona’s racial, income and housing
demographics, the identified impediments to fair housing that have been discerned by the community
and through FHIP funded studies, the ongoing activities to ameliorate or better, to remove impediments,
and a list of actions appropriate to the State government.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice
7
SECTION TWO
STATISTICAL DATA
ON DEMOGRAPHICS, INCOME,
POVERTY, EMPLOYMENT, AND
HOUSING PROFILE
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
8
This section shows in narrative and table formats data related to population, income, poverty,
employment and housing. The data is divided into two broad geographical categories: the state level and
non‐metropolitan Arizona. The information presented were primarily obtained from the 2000 Census,
2000 CHAS data made available on the Internet by HUD, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data,
and various studies by the Arizona Department of Housing and Arizona Housing Commission.
STATEWIDE DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
During the 1990s, Arizona’s total population increased by 40% (or by 1,465,40 people), from 3,665,228 in
1990 to 5,130,632 in 2000. Of the total new population, 76.9% live in the two metropolitan counties of
Maricopa and Pima, and the remaining 22.1% in the 13 rural counties. In terms of percentage population
growth in the 1990s, Arizona was the second fastest growing state in the nation, following Nevada.
Arizona is a highly urbanized state, with 76.3% of its population residing in the two urban counties of
Maricopa and Pima, and the remaining 23.7% in the 13 rural counties.
Population by Race and Ethnicity
The distribution of state population by race and ethnicity, based on 2000 Census, is as follows:
􀂃􈌲 25.3%, Hispanic Origin.
􀂃􈌳 36.2%, minority (according to Population Statistics Unit of the Arizona Department of Economic
Security).
􀂃􈌷 75.5% ��White” (Hispanic and Non‐Hispanic White).
Further details regarding Arizona’s population is presented in Table 1:
Table 1: Arizona Population by Race and Ethnicity – Year 2000:
Race or Ethnicity
Number
% of Total
Population
Total Population 5,130,632 100%
White 3,873,611 75.5%
Black or African American 158,873 3.1%
American Indian and Alaska Native 255,879 5.0%
Asian 92,236 1.8%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 6,733 0.1%
Some Other Race 596,774 11.6%
Two or More Races 146,526 2.9%
Hispanic or Latino* 1,295,617 25.3%
Not Hispanic or Latino 3,835,015 74.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
* Persons of Hispanic Origin could be of any race. Hispanic is not a race, it is an ethnicity like Germans, Afghans, or
Greeks.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
9
Population by Age
People back east and in the Midwest think that Arizona is a retirement state and median age might be in
the 40s or 50s. But that is a myth, rather than a reality. According to Census 2000, median age of
population in Arizona was 34.2 years, which is lower than the U.S. median age of 35.3 years.
􀂃􈍓 School‐Age Population (Under 18 Years) ‐ Data presented in Table 2 shows that the school age
population (Under 18 years) in Arizona is 26.6% of the total population.
􀂃􈍗 Working‐Age Population (18 to 65 Years) ‐ This population group comprises 60.3% of the total
population.
􀂃􈍒 Retirement‐Age Population (65 Years and Over) – As of year 2000, 13% of the total state
population was in this age. It is important to know that almost 6% of the state total population is 75
years or older. The number of people in this age category will increase significantly in the next 10 to
20 years, exerting much pressure on public resources allocated for services to this population group.
More details are presented in Table 2:
Table 2: Arizona Population by Age – Year 2000:
Selected Age Category
Number
% of Total
Population
Total Population 5,130,632 100%
Under 5 Years 382,386 7.5%
Under 18 Years 1,366,947 26.6%
18 to 64 Years 309,5846 60.3%
65 Years and Over 667,839 13.0%
65 to 74 Years 363,841 7.1%
75 to 84 Years 235,473 4.6%
85 Years and Over 68,525 1.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Arizona Income Data
With the rapid economic growth over the last 20 to 30 years, people in Arizona are still behind the U.S. in
terms of average income. This is true for median household income, median family income and per capita
income, as presented in Table 4. The definitions of the three income measures are as follows:
􀂃􈍍 Median Household Income – Households, including one person households, incorporate both
family income and non‐family income. Many non‐family households consist of either an elderly
surviving spouse or a very young adult.
􀂃􈍍 Median Family Income – Family refers to the census definition of “householder” and one or more
other persons living in the same household who are related by blood, marriage or adoption. This
excludes one person households. Income is higher here than in other measures because families
typically have more people earning incomes.
􀂃􈍐 Per Capita Income – Represents income received by all individuals who live in the area; the
aggregate figure is divided by total population, giving per capita personal income.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
10
Table 3: Average Income Indicators for Arizona and U.S. – 1999
Average Income Indicator Arizona U.S.
Median Household Income $40,558 $41,994
Median Family Income $46,723 $50046
Per Capita Income $20,275 $21,857
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Why do people in Arizona have lower incomes than national average? There is no easy answer. Most
likely, it is due to a combination of the following factors: lower wages, lower cost of living, lower
manufacturing employment, weaker unions, higher minority concentration, and highly market‐oriented
business environment.
Household Income by Income Category
Arizonans are doing better at the lower income brackets and worse at the higher income brackets. For
example:
􀂃􈌸 8.6% of households in Arizona make less than $10,000 per year, as compared to 9.5% for the U.S.
􀂃􈌶 60.4% of households in Arizona make less than $50,000 per year, as compared to 58% for the U.S.
􀂃􈌱 10.8% of households in Arizona have incomes in the $100,000 plus range, as compared to 12.9% for
the U.S.
Further breakdowns on household income by income category are presented in Table 4:
Table 4: Household Income ‐ 1999
Arizona U.S.
Household Income
Number of
Households
% of Total
Households
Number of
Households
% of Total
Households
Total Households 1,901,625 100.0% 105,539,122 100.0%
Less than $10,000 163,221 8.6% 10,067,027 9.5%
$10,000 to $14,999 120,770 6.4% 6,657,228 6.3%
$15,000 to $19,999 128,205 6.7% 13,536,965 6.3%
$20,000 to $29,999 270,248 14.2% 13,519,242 13.0%
$30,000 to $39,999 253,930 13.4% 17,446,272 12.3%
$40,000 to $49,999 210,511 11.1% 20,540,604 10.6%
$50,000 to $74,999 365,024 19.2% 10,799,245 19.5%
$75,000 to $99,999 184,026 9.7% 8,147,826 10.2%
$100,000 or more 205,690 10.8% 2,322,038 12.3%
Median Household
Income $40,558 $41,994
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and Arizona Department of Housing.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
11
Household Income by Race and Income Category
Minorities in Arizona comprise a higher share of the lower income households, and a smaller share of the
higher income households:
􀂃􈍌 Lowest Income Category ‐ 24.2% of Native Americans, 13.5% of Blacks and close to 12% of Asians
and Hispanics are included in the “less than $10,000” income category, as compared to 7.3% for
“White”.
􀂃􈍍 Middle to Low Income Categories – 70.8% of Native Americans, 62.9% of Hispanics and 58.2% of
Blacks are included in the ”Less than $40,000” income category, compared to 47.1% for “White”
􀂃􈍈 High Income Category – Only 2.5% of Native Americans and 3.5% of Hispanics are included in the
income category of “More than $100,000”, as compared to 11.6% for “White” and 15.7% for Asians.
This is the only income category, where Asians surpass Whites.
For further details, please refer to Table 5:
Table 5: Median Household Income by Income Category and by Race or Ethnicity
Arizona Total Pop White Black
Native
Americans Asian
Hawaiians
and Other
Pacific
Islanders
Some
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races Hispanic
Not
Hispanic
Less than $10,000 8.6% 7.3% 13.5% 24.2% 11.9% 8.3% 11.0% 13.3% 11.6% 7.9%
Less than $15,000 14.9% 13.3% 21.2% 33.9% 16.9% 18.2% 19.1% 20.8% 20.0% 13.9%
Less than $20,000 21.7% 19.7% 28.5% 42.6% 22.0% 21.9% 28.5% 28.3% 29.2% 20.1%
Less Than $30,000 35.9% 33.4% 44.2% 58.0% 32.8% 34.8% 46.9% 44.3% 46.9% 33.6%
Less than $40,000 49.7% 47.1% 58.2% 70.8% 44.3% 51.3% 63.1% 59.4% 62.9% 46.9%
Less than $50,000 60.8% 58.2% 68.7% 79.5% 54.0% 64.8% 75.2% 70.6% 74.3% 57.9%
Less than $75,000 80.0% 78.1% 85.4% 93.0% 72.6% 82.5% 91.7% 87.2% 90.3% 77.8%
Less than $100,000 89.7% 88.4% 93.3% 97.5% 84.3% 93.0% 97.3% 95.1% 96.5% 88.2%
More than $100,000 10.3% 11.6% 6.7% 2.5% 15.7% 7.0% 2.7% 4.9% 3.5% 11.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and Arizona Department of Housing.
Poverty by Race and Ethnicity:
Total poverty rate in Arizona is slightly higher than the U.S. average, 13.4% for Arizona versus 12.4% for
the U.S.
The rate of poverty for minority population in Arizona is significantly higher than the rest of population:
36.5% for “American Indian and Alaska Natives”, 23.6% for “Hispanics” and 19.5% for “African
Americans”, as compared to 9.9% for “White”. Further details on poverty by race and ethnicity are
presented in Table 6:
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
12
Table 6: Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity – Year 2000
Race or Ethnicity
Universe for
Poverty
Number in
Poverty
% in Poverty
Total Population 4,634,191 619,344 13.4%
White 3,549,285 351,871 9.9%
Black or African American 131,182 25,516 19.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native 222,428 81,194 36.5%
Asian 83,221 10,374 12.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander
5,435 877 16.1%
Some Other Race 513,670 125,416 24.4%
Two or More Races 128,970 24,096 18.7%
Hispanic or Latino* 1,116,887 263,929 23.6%
Not Hispanic or Latino 3,517,304 355,415 10.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
* Persons of Hispanic Origin could be of any race. Hispanic is not a race, it is an ethnicity like Germans, Afghans, or
Greeks.
Poverty and Disability
In general, people with disability have higher incidence of poverty than people with no disability:
􀂃􈍁 According to Census 2000, the percentage of population age 5 and older with disability status in
Arizona was 20.1% for males and 18.7% of females. Comparable numbers at the U.S. level were 19.7%
and 19.2%.
􀂃􈍏 Of the persons with disability, 16.0% of males and 19.1% of females in Arizona were in poverty.
Comparable numbers at the U.S. level were 15.3% and 19.7%, in that order.
Table 7: Arizona’s Poverty Status by Disability Status for the Civilian
Noninstitutionalized Population, 2000
Disability Status by Sex and Age
Number of Disabled
Persons
% of Population With
Disability Status
Males > 5 years of age with a disability 458,334 20.1%
Income in 1999 below poverty level 73,430 16.0%
Income in 1999 at or above poverty
level
384904 84.0%
Females > 5 years of age with a
disability
440,357 18.7%
Income in 1999 below poverty level 83,966 19.1%
Income in 1999 at or above poverty
level
356,391 80.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and Arizona Department of Housing
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
13
STATEWIDE EMPLOYMENT PROFILE
Arizona’s main economic sectors include services, government and trade. The single largest economic
sector is services, employing more than 883,700 people in 2003. Wholesale and retail trade provided
more than 368,200 jobs. Many of these jobs are directly related to tourism, an industry that injects more
than $12 billion into the state’s economy each year.
In 2003, manufacturing accounted for 174,000 jobs, or approximately 7.5 percent of the state’s
employment, and has historically generated almost 15 percent of wages and salaries.
The construction sector, also very important to Arizona’s economy, accounted for 176,600 jobs or 7.6
percent of the state’s employment in 2003. This sector has experienced a substantial increase in
construction activity over the past few years.
Table 8: Arizona Employment by Industry – 2003
Employment Number
Percent of Total
Employment
Government 393,700 17.0%
Professional and Business Services 320,000 13.9%
Retail Trade 275,100 11.9%
Educational and Health Services 246,300 10.7%
Leisure and Hospitality 231,500 10.0%
Construction 176,600 7.6%
Manufacturing 174,000 7.5%
Financial Activities 159,300 6.9%
Wholesale Trade 93,100 4.0%
Other Services 85,900 3.7%
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 76,600 3.3%
Information 49,400 2.1%
Agriculture 20,200 0.9%
Mining 8,000 0.3%
Total Employment 2,309,700 100.0%
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security and Arizona Department of Housing.
Note: Employment data for Agriculture is from ES‐202; all other data from Labor Force and Non‐Farm
Employment.
􀂃􈍉 In terms of urban and rural split, 85.7% of total jobs in 2003 were located in the two metro counties
of Maricopa and Pima, and the remaining 14.3% in the 13 rural counties.
􀂃􈍔 The opportunity for employment in most rural counties is much limited as compared to the urban
counties. For example, the unemployment rate in Yuma and Apache counties were 23.1% and 14.1%
as compared to 4.9% and 4.3% for the two urban counties of Maricopa and Pima.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
14
STATEWIDE HOUSING PROFILE
Single family is the primary type of housing both in Arizona and for the U.S. as a whole. Census 2000
data reveals that almost 65% of the total housing units in Arizona are single family homes, 20%
multifamily and 15% manufactured and other forms of housing. Comparable numbers for the U.S. are
65.9%, 26.3% and 7.8%, in that order. Specific numbers and percentages of housing units by housing type
are presented in table 9.
Table 9: Arizona and U.S. Housing Distribution by Housing Type
Arizona U.S.
Housing Information Indicator Number % Number %
Total Number of Units in 2000: 2,189,189 100% 115,904,641 100%
Single Family 1,375489 64.8% 76,313,410 65.9%
Multifamily 483,738 20.1% 30,549,393 26.3%
Manufactured or Mobile Homes 302,575 13.8% 8,779,228 7.6%
Other Type of Housing 27,387 1.3% 262,610 0.2%
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security and Arizona Department of Housing.
Homeownership Rate by Race and Ethnicity
The over all homeownership rate and homeownership rates for most minorities are higher in Arizona
than the U.S. average:
􀂃􈍁 All households – Arizona 68%, U.S. average 66.2%.
􀂃􈍗 White – Arizona 71.3%, U.S. average 71.3%.
􀂃􈍈 Hispanic ‐ Arizona 55%, U.S. average 45.7%.
􀂃􈍁 American Indians ‐ Arizona 61.2%, U.S. average 55.7%.
􀂃􈍂 Black ‐ Arizona 44.1%, U.S. average 46.3%.
Further details on homeownership rates by race and ethnicity are presented in Table 10.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
15
Table 10: Arizona and U.S. Homeownership Rate by Race and Ethnicity
Homeownership Rate
Homeownership Rate by Race and Ethnicity Arizona U.S.
All Households 68.0% 66.2%
White Alone 71.3% 71.3%
Black or African American Alone 44.1% 46.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 61.2% 55.7%
Asian Alone 57.0% 53.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders
Alone 46.8% 45.5%
Some Other Race Alone 52.6% 40.4%
Hispanic or Latino (of Any Race) 55.0% 45.7%
Not Hispanic or Latino 70.8% 68.1%
Source: 2000 Census, Summary File 4.
Compiled by: Arizona Department of Housing 3/4/2004
Housing Quality and Affordability
Housing quality and affordability is measured by the following three criteria:
􀂃􈍐 Persons or families living in units with physical defects (lacking a complete kitchen or bath); or
􀂃􈍐 Persons or families living in overcrowded conditions (greater than 1.01 person/room); or
􀂃􈍐 Persons or families are cost burdened (paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing,
including utilities.
Using the above criteria, it is clear that housing quality and affordability problems in Arizona are more
severe than the nation as a whole:
􀂃􈌱 1.1% of homes in Arizona Lack complete plumbing facility, as compared to only 0.6% nationally.
􀂃􈌳 38.7% of renters in Arizona pay 30% or more of their incomes for rent, as compared to 36.8%
nationally. The problem of cost burdened households is widespread and most contributes to the
inability of a lower income households to live adequately with their incomes.
􀂃􈌴 4.4% of households in Arizona live in overcrowded conditions as opposed to only 3% nationally.
􀂃􈌴 4.2% of households in Arizona live in severely overcrowded conditions as opposed to only 2.7%
nationally.
More details on housing quality and affordability criteria are presented in the following table:
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
16
Table 11: Housing Quality Characteristics
Housing Quality Characteristics
(Number of
Housing
Units)
Arizona
(% of Total
Housing
Units)
Arizona
(% of Total
Housing
Units)
U.S.
Lacking Complete Plumbing Facility 21,088 1.1% 0.6%
Lacking Complete Kitchen Facility 20,999 1.1% 0.7%
Paying 30% or More for Housing Cost ‐
Owners (Unaffordable)
233,355 22.6% 21.8%
Paying 30% or More for Rent ‐ Renters
(Unaffordable)
233,793 38.7% 36.8%
1.1 to 1.5 Persons Per Room (Overcrowded) 83,298 4.4% 3.0%
1.51 or More Persons Per Room (Severely
Overcrowded)
80,394 4.2% 2.7%
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security and Arizona Department of Housing.
NON‐METROPOLITAN ARIZONA
For the purpose of this study, metropolitan Arizona is consisted of Maricopa and Pima Counties and non‐metropolitan
(or rural) Arizona of the remaining 13 counties.
In general, the non‐metropolitan area of Arizona is much smaller in terms of population and economic
activity. It has higher poverty rate, higher housing quality problems, higher concentration of minorities’
population, lower job growth, and lower median household income. Specific demographic, economic and
housing differences between non‐metropolitan and metropolitan areas of Arizona are presented in tables
12, 13 and 14.
Population (Table 12):
􀂃􈍔 The 2003 estimated non‐metro population of Arizona was 1,322,045, which is about 70% smaller than
total metro population of 4,307,825.
􀂃􈍍 Minority population comprises 37.3% of the non‐metro areas’ total population, as compared to 31.6%
for the metro areas.
􀂃􈍔 The share of Hispanic ethnicity as a percent of total population for the non‐metro Arizona is 28.2%, as
compared to 25.8% for the metro areas.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
17
Table 12: Population
Selected Indicators Non‐Metropolitan Arizona Metropolitan Arizona
2003 Total Population 1,322,045 4,307,825
% of Total State Population in
1990 23.9% 76.1%
% of Total State Population in
2000 23.7% 76.3%
% of Total State Population in
2003 23.5% 76.5%
Total Minority Population (%) 37.3% 31.6%
Hispanic Ethnicity (%) 28.2% 25.8%
Source: 2000 Census, and Arizona Department of Housing.
Income, Poverty and Unemployment Rate (Table 13):
􀂃􈍐 Per capita income in the non‐metro areas of Arizona is significantly lower than metro areas: $15,618
versus $21,720.
􀂃􈍐 Poverty rate in the non‐metro areas is much higher than the metro‐areas: 19.0% versus 12.4%.
􀂃􈍕 Unemployment rate in the non‐metro areas is 8.9%, which is significantly higher than 4.8% for the
metro areas.
Table 13: Income, Employment and Unemployment Rate
Selected Indicators Non‐Metropolitan Arizona Metropolitan Arizona
Per Capita Income $15,618 $21,720
Poverty Rate 1999 19.0% 12.4%
% of Arizona Labor Force
(2003) 19.9% 80.1%
Unemployment Rate (2003) 8.9% 4.8%
Source: 2000 Census, and Arizona Department of Housing.
Housing and Housing Quality (Table 14):
􀂃􈍈 Homeownership rate in the non‐metro areas of the state is 72.3%, which is significantly higher than
the 66.8% for the metro areas.
􀂃􈍁 A sizable portion of the housing in the non‐metro areas of Arizona is comprised of manufactured
housing and mobile homes – 28.8%, as compared to only 8.5% for the metro areas.
􀂃􈍔 The non‐metro residents have to deal with more housing quality problems than metro residents:
o Plumbing Problems – 3.3% versus 0.5 %.
o Lack of Complete Kitchen Facilities – 2.9% versus 0.6%.
o Overcrowded Conditions – 5.2% to 4.1%, and
o Severely Overcrowded Conditions – 4.9% to 4.0%
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
18
Further details regarding housing quality comparisons are presented in Table 14:
Table 14: Housing and Housing Quality
Selected Indicators Non‐Metropolitan Arizona Metropolitan Arizona
Homeownership Rate (2000) 72.3% 66.8%
Manufactured Housing/Mobile
Homes as % of Total Housing
Units 28.8% 8.5%
% of Homes Lacking Complete
Plumbing Facility 3.3% 0.5%
% of Homes Lacking Complete
Kitchen Facility 2.9% 0.6%
Paying 30% or More for
Housing Cost ‐ Owners
(Unaffordable) 22.0% 22.7%
Paying 30% or More for Rent ‐
Renters (Unaffordable) 33.8% 39.8%
1.1 to 1.5 Persons Per Room
(Overcrowded) 5.2% 4.1%
1.51 or More Persons Per Room
(Severely Overcrowded) 4.9% 4.0%
Source: 2000 Census, and Arizona Department of Housing.
Non‐Metropolitan Minority Concentration Census Tracts
Table 15 contains a list of census tracts for the non‐metro counties of Arizona (off –Indian Reservations),
each having a minority population concentration ratio of 75% or higher (or the minority population rate
of at least 200 percent of the state minority population rate of 36.2%). The primary minority group in all
of the targeted census tracts is Hispanics.
The data presented in Table 15 also reveals that there is a strong relationship between minority
population concentration, poverty rate and income. For example, the majority of the selected census tracts
with high concentration of minorities’ population also had higher poverty rates. Median family incomes
in these census tracts were at low and moderate levels.
The data presented in Table 15 have been extracted from the various data tables made available on the
Web site of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). The Council is a formal
interagency body empowered to prescribe uniform principles, standards, and report forms for the federal
examination of financial institutions by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and to make
recommendations to promote uniformity in the supervision of financial institutions.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
19
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data as an Indicator of Discrimination
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data by county is not readily available for rural Arizona
counties. Such data is only available for the five Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) of Phoenix‐Mesa
MSA, Tucson MSA, Flagstaff, AZ‐UT MSA , Las Vegas, NV‐AZ MSA and Yuma MSA. Although lending
data by census tracts is not available for rural counties, we believe that patterns and conclusions
concerning lending practices in areas of minority concentration in Yuma and Flagstaff MSAs can be
extrapolated to other parts of the State, while still considering circumstances specific to each region.
The HMDA data for the two study areas shows disparities in the number of applications submitted,
denied and withdrawn or closed.
Table 15: Minority High Concentration Census Tracts
County
Census
Tract Code
Tract
Population
Tract
Minority %
White
Population
Tract
Minority
Population
American
Indian
Population
Hispanic
Population
% Below
Poverty
level
Tract
Median
Family
Income %
Tract
Income
Level
Cochise 6 3,375 75.0 844 2,531 101 2,363 36.2 62.8 Moderate
Cochise 7 4,052 85.2 600 3,452 5 3,416 33.8 76.0 Moderate
Cochise 8 4,951 85.3 730 4,221 23 4,123 35.4 71.0 Moderate
Cochise 9 6,759 92.6 502 6,257 15 6,170 40.6 59.3 Moderate
Gila 13 1,563 75.7 380 1,183 12 1,145 25.6 84.1 Middle
Pinal 19 2,332 83.4 388 1,944 123 1,567 37.1 57.2 Moderate
Pinal 20 8,990 81.4 1,670 7,320 202 6,594 27.6 60.2 Moderate
Santa Cruz 9961.02 12,875 81.7 2,352 10,523 30 10,288 14.0 97.5 Middle
Santa Cruz 9962 4,147 93.3 280 3,867 5 3,815 35.0 68.0 Moderate
Santa Cruz 9963 7,944 94.5 440 7,504 8 7,442 31.0 62.1 Moderate
Santa Cruz 9964.01 3,645 95.7 157 3,488 6 3,466 32.3 80.0 Moderate
Santa Cruz 9964.02 4,999 94.5 276 4,723 19 4,664 38.5 60.1 Moderate
Yuma 2 3,926 76.9 906 3,020 75 2,766 17.8 96.5 Middle
Yuma 3.01 3,839 78.3 832 3,007 33 2,768 24.5 89.7 Middle
Yuma 3.02 4,713 85.2 698 4,015 20 3,765 45.8 63.9 Moderate
Yuma 4.02 3,563 85.8 507 3,056 26 2,941 29.1 86.4 Middle
Yuma 7 4,858 78.1 1,066 3,792 27 3,567 27.4 71.3 Moderate
Yuma 114.01 8,091 99.0 84 8,007 4 7,988 34.0 68.0 Moderate
Yuma 115.01 2,705 83.1 457 2,248 475 1,727 40.0 70.0 Moderate
Yuma 115.02 7,305 96.0 292 7,013 27 6,939 26.4 81.0 Middle
Yuma 116 5,024 98.9 56 4,968 11 4,944 38.1 38.1 Low
Source: FFIEC and Arizona Department of Housing.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
20
The Flagstaff MSA
Two groups of census tracts were selected for comparison and analysis purposes. Each group had five
census tracts. The census tracts in group1 had much higher poverty and minority concentration rates,
than in group 2.
The data in Table 16 shows significant differences in the pattern of lending practices, as summarized in
the last two columns:
􀂃􈍌 Loan origination or approval rates as a percent of total number of loans (column 8) in group 1 has a
range of zero to 54.8%, as compared to 62.3% to 70.3% for group 2. There is a clear pattern indicating
that loan origination rates in group 2 were higher than in group 1.
􀂃􈍔 The application denial rates, as a percent of all applications (column 9), is much higher for group 1,
than group 2 ‐‐ 23.3% to 87.2% for group 1, compared to 8.8% to 17.3% for group 2.
Our conclusion is that at least part of the differences in the loan originations and loan denial rates
between group 1 (the high poverty area) and group 2 (the low poverty area) could be associated with
discrimination practices in lending.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
21
Table 16: Flagstaff MSA, 2002 HMDA Data
Group 1
Loan
Originated
Approved,
Not
Accepted
App
Denied
App
Withdrawn
Files Closed for
Incompleteness
Total Number
of
Applications
Loan
Originated as
% of Total
Number of
Loans
App Denied as
% of Total
Number of
Loans
CT 3 261 40 111 56 8 476 54.8% 23.3%
CT 17 168 47 96 50 8 369 45.5% 26.0%
CT 22 38 16 52 8 3 117 32.5% 44.4%
CT 23 4 19 29 2 0 54 7.4% 53.7%
CT 24 0 9 68 1 0 78 0.0% 87.2%
Total 471 131 356 117 19 1,094 43.1% 32.5%
Average 94.2 26.2 71.2 23.4 3.8 218.8 ‐ ‐
Group 2
CT 1 376 44 61 49 5 535 70.3% 11.4%
CT 6 625 87 78 88 12 890 70.2% 8.8%
CT 7 300 45 70 53 8 476 63.0% 14.7%
CT 9 223 39 49 37 10 358 62.3% 13.7%
CT 14 555 92 123 95 16 881 63.0% 14.0%
Total 2,079 307 381 322 51 3,140 66.2% 12.1%
Average 415.8 61.4 76.2 64.4 10.2 628 ‐ ‐
Flagstaff
MSA 6,923 1,120 2,000 1,287 215 11,545 60.0% 17.3%
Source: FFIEC, 2002 HMDA data, and Arizona Department of Housing.
The Yuma MSA
Two groups of census tracts were selected for comparison and analysis purposes. Each group had five census tracts.
The census tracts in Group1 had much higher poverty and minority concentration rates, than Group 2.
The data in table 17 shows significant differences in the pattern of lending practices in the two areas, as summarized
in the last two columns of that table:
􀂃􈍌 Loan origination or approval rates as a percent of total number of loans (column 8) has a range of 40.4% to 53.9%
in Group 1, as compared to 50.2% to 64.9% in Group 2. There is a clear pattern that loan origination rates in
Group 2 were higher than in Group 1.
􀂃􈍔 The application denial rates, as a percent of all applications (column 9), is much higher for Group 1, than Group
2 – 29.4% to 38.2% for Group 1, as compared to 17.3% to 32.4% for Group 2.
Our conclusion is that at least part of the differences in the loan originations and loan denial rates between Group 1
(the high poverty area) and Group 2 (the low poverty area) could be associated with discrimination practices in
lending.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
22
Table 17: Yuma MSA, 2002 HMDA Data
Group 1
Loan
Originated
Approved,
Not
Accepted
App
Denied
App
Withdrawn
Files Closed
for
Incompleten
ess
Total Number of
Applications
Loan
Originated
as % of
Total
Number of Loans
App Denied
as % of
Total
Number
of Loans
CT 4.02 168 40 159 43 6 416 40.4% 38.2%
CT 7 67 12 61 24 2 166 40.4% 36.7%
CT 114.01 453 70 230 63 24 840 53.9% 27.4%
CT 115.01 184 19 106 48 3 360 51.1% 29.4%
CT 16 82 6 64 36 4 192 42.7% 33.3%
Total
954 147 620 214 3
9
1,974
48.3% 31.4%
Average 1,90.8 29.4 124 42.8 7.8 394.8 ‐ ‐
Group 2
CT 2 104 17 67 18 1 207 50.2% 32.4%
CT 6 213 33 79 43 10 378 56.3% 20.9%
CT 11 204 36 105 51 9 405 50.4% 25.9%
CT 109 777 110 207 81 22 1,197 64.9% 17.3%
CT 111 815 124 329 124 22 1414 57.6% 23.3%
Total 2,113 320 787 317 64 3,601 58.7% 21.9%
Average 422.6 64 157.4 63.4 12.8 720.2 ‐ ‐
Yuma
County 5,521 842 2,469 934 196 9,962 55.4% 24.8%
Note: CT 4.02 is CT 4; CT 114.01 is CT 114, and CT 115.01 is CT 115.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Two
23
CONCLUSIONS
The correlation between low income and minority status is very high throughout Arizona. The incidence
of minority households experiencing housing problems of cost burden, overcrowding or substandard
conditions is also very high. However, it can be said that as both minority and non‐minority households
move down the income scale, the incidence of housing problems increases dramatically, and appears not
to be so much a racial matter as an income matter. Since the percent of minorities who are low income far
exceeds their proportionate numbers in the general population, minorities do suffer disproportionately in
terms of their basic need of adequate, affordable shelter. It is here where the urgent issues of affordable,
standard housing and fair housing intersect, and must be addressed by all sectors involved in housing
development. Those agencies—government agencies with funds for affordable housing activities,
nonprofits with affordable housing resources, and private sector actors in housing —developers, builders,
property owners and managers ‐ must not hide from the harsh realities of real suffering that are hidden
behind the statistics in the foregoing paragraphs. Where resources can be allocated to reduce the
incidence of housing problems in Arizona, they need to be so allocated, and they should be allocated with
the intent of alleviating the disproportionate problems of minority households.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice
24
SECTION THREE
EVALUATION OF THE STATE OF
ARIZONA’S FAIR HOUSING
PROFILE
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Three
25
Statistics provided by the Civil Rights Division of the Office of the State Attorney General and anecdotal
information provided by FHIP grantees in Arizona and respondents to the February 2004 fair housing
survey performed by the Arizona Department of Housing begin to describe the extent and nature of fair
housing discrimination in Arizona. The phrase, “begin to describe” is used, because it is widely
recognized that most fair housing offenses are not reported, and frequently, victims of discrimination do
not understand they are being discriminated against. Because of these circumstances, it is easier to draw
conclusions about the nature of discrimination, than it is to draw conclusions concerning the frequency
with which discrimination occurs.
DATA FROM THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE
Table 18 below enumerates, by county, the incidence of the number of charges filed for the September
1990 ‐ November 1995 and September 2000 ‐ April 2004 periods. Contrary to our expectations, there has
been a decline in the number of charges filed, both in terms of total and on an annual basis.
The reader should be aware that fully half the State’s population resides in Maricopa County (Phoenix
and suburbs) and another one‐third reside in Pima County (Tucson). These two counties are also where
the Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division maintains offices, and where nonprofit fair housing
advocacy agencies, which are FHIP grantees, are active in community education and in handling fair
housing complaints.
Table 18 ‐ Geographical Location of Housing Complaints Filed
September 1990 ‐ November 1995 and Sept. 1990 – April 2004
No. of Files Charged
Sept. 1990 – Nov. 1995
No. of Files Charged
Sept. 2000 – April 2004
County
Community
Total
Annual
Total
Annual
Maricopa Phoenix and
suburbs
413 79.9
259 70.6
Pima Tucson 325 62.9 157 42.8
Yavapai Prescott 9 1.7 9 2.5
Coconino Flagstaff 7 1.4 7 1.9
Yuma Yuma 6 1.2 8 2.2
Cochise Sierra Vista 3 0.6 6 1.6
Gila Payson 3 0.6 2 0.5
Mohave Bullhead City 2 0.4 1 0.3
All Other
Counties
0 0.0
0 0.0
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Three
26
Tables 19 and 20 display information on the circumstances under which discrimination allegedly occurs
and the incidence of discrimination against the various protected classes. Based on the statistics presented
below, it is reasonable to conclude that the main issues in complaints pending were related to
terms/conditions/privileges relating to services and facilities in rental properties. The primary alleged
basis of complaints was related to disability, race and national origin.
Table 19 ‐ Alleged Issues in Complaints Pending
as of April 30, 2004
ALLEGED ISSUES Number % of Total
Terms/conditions/privileges relating to rental property 109 14.8%
False representation 29 3.9%
Discriminatory refusal to rent 95 12.9%
Otherwise deny or make available 87 11.8%
Services and facilities related to rental properties 47 6.4%
Terms/conditions/privileges relating to services
and facilities in rental properties 304 41.3%
Retaliation 1 0.1%
Reasonable accommodations 64 8.7%
Total 736 100.0%
Table 20 ‐ Alleged Bases of Complaints
Pending as of April 30, 2004
BASIS of COMPLAINT Number % of Total
Familial Status 34 6.4%
Race 107 20.1%
National Origin 91 17.1%
Disability 195 36.6%
Sex 20 3.8%
Mental Handicap 12 2.3%
Retaliation 48 9.0%
Religion
13 2.4%
Color 13 2.4%
Total 533 100.0%
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Three
27
DATA FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING SURVEY
The survey performed by the Arizona Department of Housing in February 2004 (see Appendix) provided
useful anecdotal reporting on the extent and nature of discrimination in Arizona. The questions in this
survey, and a summary of the responses received are listed below.
Question One: What area do you serve?
The respondents serve Maricopa, Pima, Coconino, Cochise, Yavapai, Apache and Navajo counties.
Question Two: Do you believe that housing in the communities served by your organization is
generally available without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial
status and national origin?
􀂃􈍁 A number of respondents agreed, not surprisingly, that discrimination does exist in the
communities, which they serve.
􀂃􈍔 The main types of discrimination identified included discrimination on the basis of disability,
followed by race and family size.
Question Three: To the extent discrimination does exist, please describe the forms this discrimination
takes.
􀂃􈍄 Discrimination by disability ‐ Respondents described discrimination against the disability
community as usually involving a landlord’s unwillingness to make reasonable accommodations
for the tenant. Typical complaints fall in the categories of refusal to adapt public spaces, refusal to
allow the disabled tenant to make modifications to the unit, and refusal to allow the disabled
tenant to have an “assistive” animal.
􀂃􈍄 Discrimination by Familial Status, Racial and Ethnicity Basis – Familial status appears to be the
most problematic form of discrimination currently occurring, although it often is a disguise for
racial discrimination. “...the occupancy standard law passed by the Arizona legislature a few years ago
provides an open opportunity for racial discrimination and disparate treatment based on familial
status...The law only allows two persons per bedroom, and landlords often preclude large families from
renting a two or even three bedroom apartment. Large families are often Hispanic, African American or
Asian, who cannot afford to rent three or four bedroom apartments...Hiding behind the law, landlords who
may not want to rent to persons of Hispanic, African American or Asian origin can invoke the law and say
there are too many people in the family to qualify for the unit.”
􀂃􈍌 Lack of political support by for low income housing projects.
􀂃􈍍 Multiple respondents cited NIMBY as a major, ongoing problem, and placed part of the blame for
its success on the lack of political will on the part of elected officials who need to make permitting
and funding decisions.
􀂃􈎠 Respondents cited redlining by lenders and insurance companies, and less blatant practices such
as losing paperwork, demanding excessive documentation, stalling on the decision, and
stipulating terms and conditions that are not imposed on most applicants.
􀂃􈍒 Respondents noted that discrimination takes place in renting and purchasing housing, financing
and appraisals, and purchasing homeowners insurance.
􀂃􈍆 Finally, staff of the Civil Rights Division of the State Attorney General’s Office offered their own
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Three
28
list of observations of the nature of discrimination in the State, based on their extensive
experience in litigating and investigating complaints.
o Justice courts tend to favor the landlord and the landlord’s attorney, and there is growing
suspicion that families and minority households suffer disproportionately at these
hearings.
o Also affecting the renter are the amendments to the Arizona Landlord and Tenant Act
allowing nearly summary evictions.
o Enforcement agencies do not have a presence in rural areas.
o Relaxation of standards for adult complexes, which will further hurt families trying to
rent.
o CC&R’s in subdivisions that have these rules, allow the owner to exercise rights of first
refusal to sell.
o Non‐English speaking households cannot readily find documents that describe their
rights written in their native languages.
Question Four: The Fair Housing statutes protect persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
disability, familial status and national origin. Do you find that some of these categories experience
discrimination more than others? Which categories? Are there typical ways in which they are
discriminated against?
􀂃􈍔 The consensus to this question, which was discussed under Question Three, is that
discrimination against people with disability tops the list of the types of discrimination.
􀂃􈍔 The remarks by one respondent is also shared by several others: “Lying about apartment
availability, asking for higher deposits, harassment by making racial slurs, telling handicapped
people that no apartment is available, while there is apartment for handicapped available”.
Question Five: What positive things can you say about the status of racial discrimination in housing in
your community? Are there positive trends taking place?
􀂃􈍔 There has been some success in the area of partnering with industry professionals to reduce
housing discrimination.
􀂃􈍍 More positive voices and increase in racial mix in various communities.
Question Six: What recommendations do you have for actions that would reduce the level and kinds
of discrimination in housing?
Among the responses were these suggestions:
􀂃􈍍 More education for landlords and apartment management regarding issues related to
discrimination in housing and cultural sensitivity.
􀂃􈍍 More education for landlords and managers of subsidized units. Also, better treatment by
apartment officials of mentally ill and people with assistive animals.
􀂃􈍈 Holding landlords/owners and businesses more accountable to insure fair practices.
􀂃􈍍 More education and marketing making people aware of their rights.
􀂃􈍍 More education, awareness about their rights, TV commercials, and radio announcements and
advertisement that reach renters and landlords.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Three
29
􀂃􈍅 Education and campaign for affordable housing.
􀂃􈍐 Protection of seniors from noise and drugs.
􀂃􈍈 Have examples shown of prosecuted landlords.
􀂃􈍍 More education and awareness for people who do discriminate.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice
30
SECTION FOUR
IDENTIFICATION OF
IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR
HOUSING CHOICE IN THE
STATE OF ARIZONA
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Four
31
We humans seem to have a propensity to make substantial efforts to surround ourselves with people who
look like and act like ourselves. We immediately evaluate a person by their looks, we make assumptions,
and we fit them into our own categories. Likely, we are genetically “hard‐wired” to discern who is one of
“us”, and who is not, and we often assume that people who are different are of questionable character.
But the instincts and behaviors which may have served us well tens of thousands of years ago now cause
immense hardship, anger, and disrespect as we continually scan our surroundings to decide who is “us”
and who is “them”, and then act on that decision in ways that exclude people from our communities,
neighborhoods, and apartment buildings. For instance, consider recent data accumulated on the topic of
inter‐racial evaluations by the University of Chicago, which was published in the January/February 1996
edition of the Poverty & Race Research Action Council’s bi‐monthly newsletter:
“Survey data by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center (NORC) confirm
that white evaluations of blacks and Latinos are strongly negative, especially when compared to
white self‐ratings. Almost one‐third of whites surveyed thought blacks and Latinos were
unintelligent, while only one fifth thought they were intelligent. (The rest rated them in a middle
category.) By contrast, nearly three‐fifths of whites rated their own racial Group as intelligent, and
only 6% rated them as unintelligent. On another question inquiring whether various identity
Groups were hard working or lazy, whites again had a high opinion of their own work habits (57%
hard working, only 5% lazy), while denigrating Latinos and blacks: for Latinos, whites’ ratings
were 26% hard working, 37% lazy; for blacks, whites’ ratings were 18% hard working, 47% lazy.
While the NORC survey does not convey a completely negative assessment by whites, it does
confirm the widespread feeling among African Americans and Latinos that the white community
does not think of them with respect, and that this judgment carries over into behavior.”
In an effort to overcome fair housing discrimination and similar disrespectful behavior, we must base our
actions on the following question: If a person or family has the ability to pay for a particular dwelling and
is willing to live in that dwelling as a good neighbor, then how can that person or family be denied that
dwelling, no matter which racial or social class they may come from? Our efforts must be dedicated to
reducing the likelihood of that denial happening to the lowest incidence possible, regardless of physical
characteristics.
The State of Arizona accepts the responsibility to identify impediments and to identify actions to reduce
or eliminate those impediments, as appropriate to the State level of government. In that respect, we must,
in addition to contemplating actions at the State level, also turn to Arizona Department of Housing CDBG
and HOME local government subgrantees to require their support and action to further identify and
remove impediments, as a condition of funding. All activities to ameliorate the identified impediments
will be undertaken through a partnership of the State, its grantee subrecipients, fair housing advocates,
the Arizona Housing Network and others. We now turn to a discussion of the impediments to fair
housing choice as they exist in Arizona, and a list of recommended actions to ameliorate these
impediments, along with time objectives for implementation.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Four
32
LIST OF IMPEDIMENTS AND ACTION STEPS
Impediment Number One: Lack Of Knowledge Of Fair Housing Laws By Housing Consumers
Recommendations for Amelioration or Removal of Impediment Number One:
􀂃􈍓 Send Public Service announcements (PSAs) to local media in all areas receiving funding from
Arizona Department of Housing grant programs periodically that cover fair housing issues.
􀂃􈍃 Continue to distribute the fair housing brochures on fair housing rights, both in English and Spanish,
to all organizations which serve low income, disabled and minority groups.
􀂃􈍄 Develop LEP (Limited English Proficiency) Plan that maximizes opportunities for publicizing fair
housing protections.
􀂃􈍃 Continue to participate in the Arizona Fair Housing Partnership and actively advocate for more rural
initiatives.
􀂃􈍃 Continue investments in statewide education efforts in all rural counties.
Implementation Timeframes for Impediment Number One:
􀂃􈍔 The PSAs and brochures will be circulated to the media periodically, commencing September 2004.
􀂃􈍅 Education efforts contract will be re-evaluated and renewed during August 2004.
􀂃􈍔 The Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan will be developed and completed by December 2004.
􀂃􈍁 Attendance at the Arizona Fair Housing Partnership is an ongoing responsibility of the department.
Impediment Number Two: Lack Of Knowledge Of Fair Housing Laws By Housing Industry Agents:
Realtors, Builders, Landlords, Management Agents, Lenders And Insurers.
Recommendation for Amelioration or Removal of Impediment Number Two:
􀂃􈍁 Assess the success of ADOH’s fair housing education plan (revamped in 2003) and re-examine the
segments of the industry most in need of education and develop a plan to provide training to these
groups statewide. Key in this effort will be a continued department commitment to training in all
rural counties and training at department compliance events for property managers. Additionally,
pending the re-evaluation scheduled for August, the Department will continue to require its
education provider to target housing industry agents as well as housing consumers in its overall
training offerings.
Implementation Timeframes for Impediment Number Two – September 2004 – September 2007.
􀂃􈍅 Education efforts contract will be re-evaluated and renewed during August 2004.
Impediment Number Three: Lack of Hard Data on the Extent of Discrimination in the Areas of
Homebuyer Insurance, Zoning and Permitting Processes
Recommendations for Amelioration or Removal of Impediment Number Three:
􀂃􈍉 Initiate activities that will result in an empirical study of the availability and terms of homeowner
insurance in predominately minority and low income census tracts. Interest by the State Department
of Insurance, ASU and/or UofA faculty in designing and performing the analysis will be sought.
􀂃􈍁 Approach the Arizona Planning Association and Arizona’s institutions of higher education to seek
their commitment to a study of the effects of zoning and permitting on fair housing in a small sample
of rural Arizona communities.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Four
33
􀂃􈍁 Arizona Department of Housing will continue to provide technical assistance on how to include
meaningful housing elements in rural Arizona comprehensive plans.
Implementation Timeframes for Impediment Number Three:
􀂃􈍄 Discussions concerning the insurance and zoning studies will commence in September 2004 and
studies will be complete by September 2005.
Impediment Number Four: Testing Of Rental, Sales, Lending And Insurance Activities Is Intermittent,
And Does Not Usually Cover The State Outside Of Maricopa And Pima Counties.
Recommendations for Amelioration or Removal of Impediment Number Four:
􀂃􈍍 Meet with FHIP grantees and other fair housing advocates to determine which aspects of fair housing
are the highest priority to test, and which geographic locations are the highest priorities in which to
test. At least one urban and one rural area will be identified for testing. The cost of testing will be
determined and funding sources will be sought.
Implementation Timeframes for Impediment Number Four:
􀂃􈍍 Meetings to determine what to test and where to test, and the cost of a testing program will
commence in 2005. Funding for testing on priority issues and in priority locations will be sought
throughout the four-year duration of this Analysis of Impediments.
Impediment Number Five: Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) Attitudes Concerning Housing For Low
Income And Disabled Persons.
Recommendations for Amelioration or Removal of Impediment Number Five:
􀂃􈍓 Sponsor training for housing and disability community agencies and advocates, staff of local
governments, and other interested parties at which anti-NIMBY strategies will be discussed, using
models that have worked successfully in Arizona and elsewhere.
􀂃􈍅 Ensure that all ADOH-sponsored training includes strategies for housing developers to overcome
NIMBY attitudes including information on building public support for affordable housing projects.
􀂃􈍕 Undertake, in partnership with the Arizona Housing Commission, a public education campaign
about the importance of affordable housing to Arizona community health.
􀂃􈍃 Communities which receive CDBG and HOME funds will be advised that, as a result of receiving a
grant from Housing Department, the State will require the local government to advocate for and
support housing activities which benefit low income persons and persons covered by the fair housing
act. A planning process for implementing specific requirements and guidelines for grantees will be
undertaken.
Implementation Timeframes for Impediment Number Five:
􀂃􈍒 Recipients of 2005 and later year’s CDBG and HOME funds will be advised of the State’s
expectations concerning support of fair housing, and the state’s position as an anti–NIMBY
advocate. The planning process for the development of specific expectations will take place
before the 2005 grant award process and will be continuously revisited during future award
years.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice
34
SECTION FIVE
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FAIR
HOUSING ACTIVITIES
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Five
35
Both the public and private sectors in Arizona are actively working to remove impediments to fair
housing choice. These activities, some of which have been recently undertaken, and others which are
ongoing, are discussed below.
FEDERALLY FUNDED ACTIVITIES
Three Arizona agencies are recipients of Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) grants. These agencies
are all grateful for the opportunity to obtain and use these grants, which primarily fund the testing of
rental, new subdivision sales, and Group home activities. The three FHIP grantees are the Civil Rights
Division of the Office of the Arizona Attorney General, the Arizona Fair Housing Center, and the
Southern Arizona Housing Center. The activities of these agencies are primarily focused on the Phoenix
and Tucson metropolitan areas. The agencies are active advocates for fair housing issues, and provide
education, mediation and complaint services to the community. All three agencies expect to compete for
FHIP funding, if there are new appropriations for the program.
STATE OF ARIZONA ACTIVITIES
The foremost participant in activities which further fair housing in Arizona is the Office of the Attorney
General. The Civil Rights Division has the authority, as a designated “substantially equivalent agency”,
to actively investigate and litigate fair housing violations throughout the State. In its recent review of the
fair housing enforcement functions of the Civil Rights Division, the Director of the San Francisco HUD
Office Fair Housing Enforcement Center, lauded the work of the Attorney General’s staff:
“We would also like to take this opportunity to convey our impression that the vast majority of work
undertaken by the Arizona Office of the Attorney General ‐ Civil Rights Section/Housing Division
during this evaluation period has been of the highest quality...your work reflects a commendable
management ethic not to sacrifice the quality of the investigation or the rights or remedies of
complainants, for ‘numbers’...We also believe that your agency’s willingness to pursue litigation of
cause cases which fail at conciliation puts your agency at the forefront of FHAP agencies monitored
by this Region, if not nationally.”
The Arizona Department of Housing has also actively worked to further fair housing, by funding
activities which provide forums for discussion and education. The Arizona Housing Summit, which
attracted persons from around the state involved in housing, provided workshops on fair housing issues.
The State has also funded fair housing activities out of the Housing Trust Fund in 2002 and 2003. These
activities are listed below:
􀂃􈍓 Southwest Fair Housing Council received $265,000 in 2003 to use for education and advocacy
programs related to fair housing in the 13 rural counties of Arizona.
􀂃􈍓 Southern Arizona Housing Center received $48,633 in 2002 to further fair housing education in
several central and southeastern Arizona rural counties.
􀂃􈍁 Arizona Fair Housing Center received $49,225 to provide fair housing training in Maricopa,
Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo and Apache and counties
􀂃􈍃 Community Legal Services received $19,263 to work on fair housing education issues in La Paz,
Mohave and Yuma counties.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Five
36
The Arizona Department of Real Estate has also actively been involved in fair housing, primarily through
education of the real estate community. In 1993, the Department sponsored an Affordable and Fair
Housing Symposium, which attracted more than six hundred real estate licensees from around the state.
The premise of the meeting was that “everyone in the United States should have an equal opportunity to
obtain adequate housing” and that real estate licensees must help facilitate this goal, and further to teach
real estate licensees about discrimination and the subtle and not‐so‐subtle forms it takes. Many of us
remember a presentation at the opening panel discussion by Carol Carpenter, a former Maricopa County
Supervisor and an attorney. She vividly described how she was discriminated against as she searched for
rental housing for herself and her young daughter. The Symposium then broke into workshops which
included sessions on the National Association of Realtor’s Voluntary Affirmative Marketing Agreement,
“How to Practice Safe Lending”, how testing is performed, and “Disabilities and the Law: What are Your
Responsibilities?”
In 1991, the Department of Real Estate, with the active support of the Commerce Department, formed the
Joint Committee on Fair Housing. This Group participated in the 1993 Symposium, as well as actively
planned and participated in the 1995 Housing Summit. The Joint Committee’s membership included
representatives from the Homebuilders, Realtors®, Multihousing, Mortgage Bankers, CHRB, LISC, HUD,
RECD, the state Departments of Real Estate, Commerce, Insurance, Banking and the Attorney General’s
Office.
In 1994, the Committee oversaw the creation of a fair housing poster and brochure, a transit advertising
campaign, and the creation of the format and recruitment of presenters for the Housing Summit. Other
recent activities included the design and delivery of a six hour fair housing instructor development
workshop, which was attended by over 100 persons. At the beginning of 1995, as an outcome of the
Arizona Housing Summit, the Joint Committee began to transform into the Arizona Housing Network,
which envisions functioning as a neutral body of parties that represent the interests of affordable housing
that all sectors of the housing industry could turn to for assistance.
The Arizona Housing Network has the mission “to provide responsible public‐private leadership in fair
and affordable housing issues through education, research and public outreach in order to enhance our
communities”. The Network will function as a statewide body that will work to establish and coordinate
local coalitions. The Network will work to be inclusive, seeking statewide representation from the public
and private for profit and nonprofit sectors and public entities. The first year goals of the Network are to:
􀂃􈍃 Complete a publication on how to buy a house, sponsor fair housing posters, and pursue 501(c)(3)
status.
􀂃􈍅 Establish relations with existing local coalitions and incubate new coalitions
􀂃􈍓 Sponsor a poster and essay contest with an affordable/fair housing day at the State Capitol.
􀂃􈍂 Better coordinate and market existing training programs.
􀂃􈍐 Produce an affordable housing newsletter.
􀂃􈍐 Participate in the preparation of this Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing.
􀂃􈍐 Provide advice on federal, state, and local housing policy, laws, regulations and programs
􀂃􈍐 Play an ombudsman, mediation role with public and private organizations.
􀂃􈍐 Perform fundraising
􀂃􈍅 Elevate public awareness on fair housing and affordable housing issues.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Section Five
37
During the Housing Summit, more than eighty persons from throughout Arizona volunteered to be part
of the Housing Network. The levels of energy and commitment, plus a general feeling of enthusiasm,
strongly indicate that the network will provide a substantial stimulus for the development of both fair
and affordable housing initiatives throughout Arizona.
The Department of Real Estate also developed the script and recruited the “actors” for highly regarded
fair housing mock trials, which dramatically portrayed fair housing violations. These trials were
presented around the state, and were attended by 1,700 persons, most of whom were real estate licensees.
The Department believes that the mock trials were the catalyst for a surge in fair housing education
throughout Arizona.
The Department of Real Estate sponsors many fair housing courses, which are offered over the course of
a year. As part of their VAMA agreements, homebuilders, real estate licensees and rental property
managers must all receive at least three hours of fair housing training, over a period of two years. The
courses offered cover basic fair housing tenets, disability statutes, property management and fair
housing, occupancy standards, and fair credit.
PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES
Both the Arizona Association of Realtors® and the Central Arizona Homebuilders are participants in
Voluntary Affirmative Marketing Agreements (VAMA). These agreements have the purpose of
acknowledging that fair housing violations do exist, and the housing industry must be educated and
vigilant to assure that all persons have equal access to housing. The Realtors® and Homebuilders require
the participation of their members in the courses described above, develop and distribute brochures and
publications on fair housing issues, monitor advertising for compliance and actively participate in forums
and the Arizona Housing Network, which has replaced the Joint Committee on Fair Housing.
In closing, the public and private sectors involved in housing in Arizona do actively participate in and
support fair housing efforts. As mentioned in many places throughout this document, fair housing’s
greatest enemy is ignorance, and the agencies mentioned in this section work hard to dispel myth and
ignorance about the protected classes.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice
38
APPENDIX
SURVEY OF STATEWIDE
FAIR HOUSING
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice Appendix
39
To: Affordable Housing & Fair Housing Advocacy Groups in Arizona
Date: February 24, 2004
From: Ondrea, Barber, Technical Assistance Coordinator
Subject: SURVEY ON FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
The Department of Housing is currently in the process of preparing the HUD‐required analysis of
impediments to fair housing in Arizona and we need your assistance. Please complete the survey and
return it to Ondrea Barber at (602‐771‐1002), no later than Friday March 15, 2004. Your responses to this
survey will assist us in documenting existing impediments and will augment statistical data we are
collecting and formatting. Please feel free to attach additional comments, if you wish to do so.
1. What is your service area (city, county, etc.)?
2. Do you believe that housing in the communities served by your organization is generally
available without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial
status, and national origin?
.
3. To the extent that discrimination does exist, please describe the form(s) this discrimination takes:
Some examples include:
a. Lack of political support for affordable housing programs and/or fair housing efforts.
b. Not in my backyard (NIMBY) on location and/or funding of affordable housing.
c. Unavailability of sites suitably zoned for affordable housing, i.e.: manufactured housing,
higher densities.
d. Other zoning issues, such as requiring large lot sizes, dedicated parcels for parks, schools,
churches; expensive amenities, such as tile roofs, expensive facades.
e. Unwillingness of local lenders to underwrite mortgage loans and multifamily loans for
affordable units and low income households.
f. Unwillingness of homeowner insurance companies to underwrite insurance for low‐income
households in low income and/or racially impacted neighborhoods.
g. Steady stream of complaints about discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.
4. The Fair Housing statutes protect persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability,
familial status and national origin. Do you find that some of these categories experience
discrimination more than others? Which categories? Are there typical ways in which they are
discriminated against?
5. What positive things can you say about the status of racial discrimination in housing in your
community? Are there positive trends taking place?
6. What recommendations do you have for actions that would reduce the level and kinds of
discrimination in housing?
Please attach any additional comments.